Afghanistan n/g | Page 7 | Vital Football

Afghanistan n/g

Is that the test then, "largely assimilated themselves into UK culture"? The middle class dentist who turns out for the local cricket team can stay, the lower class taxi driver who marries within his own community and goes to the mosque can go?

I think we are using different interpretations of "assimilated" here. By "largely assimilated" I mean they respect UK culture and its laws. If they wish to follow customs of their homeland then I don't see that as a barrier to them being allowed to stay long term providing it doesn't contradict the law etc and as per jokerman's words "not making a bloody nuisance of themselves".
 
Asylum should be temporary. If you fled Iraq because Saddam Hussein, you should havr gone back to Iraq when he went. If you don't, it's clearly not Asylum

Iraq post Saddam was far more dangerous than it was when he was in charge.

There is a fantastic series called once upon a time in iraq. Well worth a watch. We (the west) totally screwed it up and people suffered and it won't be safe for people to return and rebuild their lives for a very long time. Just like Libya, Syria and now Afghanistan.

Well worth a watch. It was on iplayer and is on you tube as well

(123) Frontline | Once Upon A Time In Iraq | Preview - YouTube
 
Iraq post Saddam was far more dangerous than it was when he was in charge.

There is a fantastic series called once upon a time in iraq. Well worth a watch. We (the west) totally screwed it up and people suffered and it won't be safe for people to return and rebuild their lives for a very long time. Just like Libya, Syria and now Afghanistan.

Well worth a watch. It was on iplayer and is on you tube as well

(123) Frontline | Once Upon A Time In Iraq | Preview - YouTube


when the French declined to join in with the post 9/11 stuff the US told then 'it will a long time before the US forgives you'.
the French minister replied 'and it will be a long time before the world forgives you' lol.
 
Iraq post Saddam was far more dangerous than it was when he was in charge.

There is a fantastic series called once upon a time in iraq. Well worth a watch. We (the west) totally screwed it up and people suffered and it won't be safe for people to return and rebuild their lives for a very long time. Just like Libya, Syria and now Afghanistan.

Well worth a watch. It was on iplayer and is on you tube as well

(123) Frontline | Once Upon A Time In Iraq | Preview - YouTube
I also watched it Mark.
Bush and Blair have a lot to answer for.
They still maintain they did the right thing despite the evidence.
 
when the French declined to join in with the post 9/11 stuff the US told then 'it will a long time before the US forgives you'.
the French minister replied 'and it will be a long time before the world forgives you' lol.

I think there's a case for saying that the French have showed how to do it in the Sahel. Be a lot less ambitious in what you want to achieve and what you are prepared to commit. Be a lot less choosy about who you back. It's still the road to nowhere in terms of progress, but the road to nowhere is better than a cliff and you can always hope that things change or something turns up.
 
It was a vanity and legacy project for two politicians hoping to leave a mark on history.
They have certainly done that.
A bit like the guy we have now.
Johnson wanted to be PM for the kudos and an ex PM for earning ability, but it’s the bit in the middle that he’s struggling with.
 
I am not too worried about genuine asylum seekers who come through legal routes mainly from camps in Turkey etc. The ones entering illegally and the being refused asylum are not being removed, those who do not claim but disappear into the country to live off their wits.
The government should take a grip build camps in remote places such as Dartmoor, Scottish islands etc. This should be promulgated where the migrants gather and told that landing in UK illegally will be automatically interned in these camps for 6 months then and only then will their claims be looked at. Make it poin tless to pay traffickers just to end up in a worse place than they already are.
 
"John Pilger on the takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls the US military a killing machine and discusses why the Afghanistan War must be viewed through the lens of Western imperialism, the scale of civilian casualties and destruction of Afghanistan by NATO countries, how the US created today’s situation by supporting Afghan jihadist forces against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the social progress and progressive reform lost to history with the fall of the Soviet-backed PDPA government in Afghanistan..."
 
"John Pilger on the takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls the US military a killing machine and discusses why the Afghanistan War must be viewed through the lens of Western imperialism, the scale of civilian casualties and destruction of Afghanistan by NATO countries, how the US created today’s situation by supporting Afghan jihadist forces against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the social progress and progressive reform lost to history with the fall of the Soviet-backed PDPA government in Afghanistan..."
Interesting. Afghans that are fleeing to the West MUST be told that Western Imperialism is responsible for their predicament. If they knew the truth, they wouldn't want to come here or stay here.
 
Interesting. Afghans that are fleeing to the West MUST be told that Western Imperialism is responsible for their predicament. If they knew the truth, they wouldn't want to come here or stay here.

Those who just want a normal life with education, safety and a brighter future for their kids might.

Wouldn't we ?

Had WW2 gone differently do you think our grandparents may have looked to flee to places like North America?
 
Those who just want a normal life with education, safety and a brighter future for their kids might.

Wouldn't we ?

Had WW2 gone differently do you think our grandparents may have looked to flee to places like North America?

No, it would be the equivalent of fleeing to Germany, Italy or Japan after ww2. North America were our allies.

Yes, we want our children to be safe and educated. What is it that is stopping children being educated in other countries? Religions. And what is making its way over here? Religions

You'd need to have kids to be worried about your kids. If the individuals currently arriving do have families, they have been left behind
 
Had WW2 gone differently do you think our grandparents may have looked to flee to places like North America?

Had Britain offered the Spanish Republic some support, rather than adopting a policy of non-intervention and turning a blind eye to Hitler and Mussolini offering Franco military assistance (including the Luftwaffe gaining valuable experience), then WW2 could well have been averted and the Blitz never have happened.

Mind you, Mark, counter-factual speculation is rather futile!
 
No, it would be the equivalent of fleeing to Germany, Italy or Japan after ww2. North America were our allies.

Yes, we want our children to be safe and educated. What is it that is stopping children being educated in other countries? Religions. And what is making its way over here? Religions

You'd need to have kids to be worried about your kids. If the individuals currently arriving do have families, they have been left behind


In your first point I'm reading that as you are making an assumption that all Afghans saw us as their enemies. I am sure many Afghans would have been perfectly happy to have led a more western way of life and therefore coming to us would be seen as coming to their allies. The "once upon a time in iraq" programme starts with Iraqi teens appearing on a TV link up (before the war) with US kids - they were excited to talk about western things.

I don't disagree that Religion can be the cause of so much conflict. With respect to those with religious beliefs on here I think a world without it would be a better world..

On your last points my only explanation is that they can only afford for one person to make the journey. The hope is they make and build a safe home to invite their families over to join (legally). when I see footage of young kids in the boats in the Med or the Channel and then think what horrors are they leaving to risk that. As a father I find that hard to get my head around.

Why here ? Why not Italy, France or somewhere else ? My only answer is English is a world wide language. They probably believe it will be easier if they can speak the basics.
 
I think there's a case for saying that the French have showed how to do it in the Sahel. Be a lot less ambitious in what you want to achieve and what you are prepared to commit. Be a lot less choosy about who you back. It's still the road to nowhere in terms of progress, but the road to nowhere is better than a cliff and you can always hope that things change or something turns up.



Paris sends in the "Legio Patria Nostra" with their white Kepis - but remember, don`t tell em yer name Monsieur Pike -as the Legion always gets the blame...
 
In your first point I'm reading that as you are making an assumption that all Afghans saw us as their enemies. I am sure many Afghans would have been perfectly happy to have led a more western way of life and therefore coming to us would be seen as coming to their allies. The "once upon a time in iraq" programme starts with Iraqi teens appearing on a TV link up (before the war) with US kids - they were excited to talk about western things.

I don't disagree that Religion can be the cause of so much conflict. With respect to those with religious beliefs on here I think a world without it would be a better world..

On your last points my only explanation is that they can only afford for one person to make the journey. The hope is they make and build a safe home to invite their families over to join (legally). when I see footage of young kids in the boats in the Med or the Channel and then think what horrors are they leaving to risk that. As a father I find that hard to get my head around.

Why here ? Why not Italy, France or somewhere else ? My only answer is English is a world wide language. They probably believe it will be easier if they can speak the basics.
The English seem to be held to higher standards than other countries in most historical areas.
 
In your first point I'm reading that as you are making an assumption that all Afghans saw us as their enemies. I am sure many Afghans would have been perfectly happy to have led a more western way of life and therefore coming to us would be seen as coming to their allies. The "once upon a time in iraq" programme starts with Iraqi teens appearing on a TV link up (before the war) with US kids - they were excited to talk about western things.

I don't disagree that Religion can be the cause of so much conflict. With respect to those with religious beliefs on here I think a world without it would be a better world..

On your last points my only explanation is that they can only afford for one person to make the journey. The hope is they make and build a safe home to invite their families over to join (legally). when I see footage of young kids in the boats in the Med or the Channel and then think what horrors are they leaving to risk that. As a father I find that hard to get my head around.

Why here ? Why not Italy, France or somewhere else ? My only answer is English is a world wide language. They probably believe it will be easier if they can speak the basics.
OK, re the first paragraph, that was kind of my point in my post. Gilles Lingham seems to think this is all the fault of the West, the Afghans themselves don't seem to be sure. If he is right, which I'm sure he is, the Afghans need to be educated.

Re the other points, I know this is going over old ground, but if someone is crossing the channel, they are leaving from France. And it's 22 miles, you can literally see France from Dover - they aren't going round the Cape of Good Hope.

And they are not leving horrors behind, they are bringing them with them. Do you really think the men on the boats, from Africa, South Asia and the Middle East are the oppressed? If someone is oppressed in Eritrea or Afghanistan then they will still be in Eritrea or Afghanistan, uneducated, underfed and poor.
 
OK, re the first paragraph, that was kind of my point in my post. Gilles Lingham seems to think this is all the fault of the West, the Afghans themselves don't seem to be sure. If he is right, which I'm sure he is, the Afghans need to be educated.

Re the other points, I know this is going over old ground, but if someone is crossing the channel, they are leaving from France. And it's 22 miles, you can literally see France from Dover - they aren't going round the Cape of Good Hope.

And they are not leving horrors behind, they are bringing them with them. Do you really think the men on the boats, from Africa, South Asia and the Middle East are the oppressed? If someone is oppressed in Eritrea or Afghanistan then they will still be in Eritrea or Afghanistan, uneducated, underfed and poor.


Would you put your loved ones in a inflatable dinghy to cross one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world ?

I'm not arguing that many are purely economic migrants seeking a better life. Hard to blame them for that. I wonder if any could fill the gaps in the labour market that the Brits have not flocked to post Brexit e.g. field work ?
 
Irony:
interesting that some people argue that muslims should not be allowed here due to the trouble it can bring but castigate China who are doing something about the same problems in their own country.

not saying i agree or disagree with either lol.