I meant NATO support as in aside from soldiers on the ground, since NATO has its own aircraft for example. But you're right there were military personnel from tons of nations according to the table here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Support_Mission

I see 750 from the UK, but I also know the UK wasn't fighting since years ago (2014), so it would be interesting to detail who was fighting and who was providing training and security (maybe just securing their own embassy, or the green zone).

Not to mention that two of the five countries mentioned aren't even in NATO.

What's happening now and will happen in Afghanistan, will be a repeat of what has happened in Syria over the last decade.
The media doesn't seem to talk much on Syria nowadays but the living conditions there are extremely poor, having no access to even the most basic resource as everything is destroyed or damaged. Mass exodus has happened over the years with more than half their population displaced.
https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-ne ... isis-facts

Another country needs to step-in to plug this mess called Afghanistan, before another major mass displacement and refugee crisis takes place. Syria holds the title #1 of having had the world's largest displacement and refugees crisis. Afghanistan will likely be competing for that top spot.

Oh my, what country do you think could do that?

Maybe China? Mainland China, I mean.

They have a very specific reason for doing so; not to let religious turmoil spill over the border into their areas of control. And I use that style of description --- "areas of control" --- because that is sort of their style in some of the ways they have kind of extended their borders.

And if they were to focus some extra attention on Afghanistan it would make breathing for some other folks a little easier. You know who I mean, yes? Them mainland Chinese folks have been pushing their fishing and mineral rights farther and farther away from their natural Mother Nature created edges of land by making new islands out a bit in the areas of water where they want some "control".

And there are also worries in Taiwan that maybe now the U.S. of A. will leave them to their fate if the mainland folks decide to start poking their fingers into that mess of a pudding.

My goodness, humans sure do seem to like to make a mess of things, don't they?

If China is going to negotiate the mass movement of Muslims between Afghanistan and China I think it’s very possible the arrow would be pointing west. Im not saying it would be humane but doing a deal with the Taliban to trade mining rights and downstream share of revenue if Afghanistan will take in reeducated Uighers sounds like it would appeal to the Chairman. Much win win there. Whatever the outcome China sure as shit isn't going to add to its present roster. Have they ever taken in a refugee, as in welcomed and not at gunpoint?

wingman wrote:

If China is going to negotiate the mass movement of Muslims between Afghanistan and China I think it’s very possible the arrow would be pointing west. Im not saying it would be humane but doing a deal with the Taliban to trade mining rights and downstream share of revenue if Afghanistan will take in reeducated Uighers sounds like it would appeal to the Chairman. Much win win there. Whatever the outcome China sure as shit isn't going to add to its present roster. Have they ever taken in a refugee, as in welcomed and not at gunpoint?

That is very interesting. Thank you. I do not think I would have thought of that. I think you are on to something there. Very, very interesting!

But I suspect there are going to be some folks that won't like that idea.

In fact, I am sort of surprised that so far my brain doesn't seem to mind that idea one little bit. I think it could solve a problem that has been bugging me for a number of years.

Yep, I have to thank you again for your thoughts. That's what these discussion platforms are supposed to do --- expand our minds into areas we otherwise wouldn't get into.

I should caution you against attempting to expand your mind based on anything I’ve ever posted here.

I think some good news wouldn't be so bad to post here. Well, some might not view these births on our birds as good news, but this particular one shows an AC who either received quick advice over the voice comm or was a smart human and knew right away to get the bird down to a lower altitude. Well, maybe a medic in the back knew to get the bird down. Whatever happened to cause the AC to get the bird down, it worked.

Afghan woman goes into labor during US military flight, gives birth aboard plane at Ramstein Air Base

While in labor, the woman began experiencing complications due to low blood pressure, AMC said. The aircraft commander descended to increase air pressure in the aircraft, a decision that helped stabilize and save the mother’s life, the AMC statement said.

Do I remember correctly that a birth on a U.S. bird gives some sort of special status to the newborn? Maybe that is just on civilian birds? Or is that really old stuff? Or completely wrong? I haven't thought about that one in years. I really don't know. I wonder if I ever did.

CH47A wrote:

I think some good news wouldn't be so bad to post here. Well, some might not view these births on our birds as good news, but this particular one shows an AC who either received quick advice over the voice comm or was a smart human and knew right away to get the bird down to a lower altitude. Well, maybe a medic in the back knew to get the bird down. Whatever happened to cause the AC to get the bird down, it worked.

Afghan woman goes into labor during US military flight, gives birth aboard plane at Ramstein Air Base

While in labor, the woman began experiencing complications due to low blood pressure, AMC said. The aircraft commander descended to increase air pressure in the aircraft, a decision that helped stabilize and save the mother’s life, the AMC statement said.

Do I remember correctly that a birth on a U.S. bird gives some sort of special status to the newborn? Maybe that is just on civilian birds? Or is that really old stuff? Or completely wrong? I haven't thought about that one in years. I really don't know. I wonder if I ever did.

Only in domestic US airspace would that apply. It would seem the most likely outcome for such a child is that it will, unfortunately, be an Afghan citizen:

If a baby is born over United States airspace, the jus soli rule means the child would be granted U.S. citizenship, according to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. Depending on the circumstances, the child may also be a candidate for dual citizenship if its parents are from a country that grants citizenship based on blood—though that would depend on the countries involved.

This same simplicity doesn’t extend to a jus sanguinis country, though. This means that an American mother can’t attain French citizenship for her baby just because she gave birth over French airspace. The baby would simply revert to the parent's U.S. citizenship, since the United States also generally follows jus sanguinis when a baby is born to U.S. citizens in a foreign country. Since jus sanguinis is the far more common rule around the globe, most babies born on a flight over international waters or foreign airspace will likely wind up taking the citizenship of its parents.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/597 ... nal-flight

Similar events in Germany - Some of the "evacuees" have been to Germany before and been deported for serious crimes.

Link in German: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland ... genen.html

IMHO the evacuation should be limited to women and girls, men only if they have actually worked with foreign forces for a prolonged time and are known to deserve our full trust.
Even the male kids are a problem, my wife works with refugees from the area and plenty of 10 year old boys behave like little pashas and seem a lost case not worth wasting resources over.

This seems like another domestic crisis in the making for EU, only fueling far right political parties further which really is the last thing we need right now.

In hindsight, it would have been more effective for us to have put a huge bounty on Bin Laden's head once he fled. $100 million. Some mercenary or Northern Alliance guy collecting on it would have been way more effective than the $2 trillion spent and defeat now.

Yeah and all senior Taliban too. 1 million here, 1 million there.

But of course that doesn't work for the military industrial complex.

Nothing will change as long as the Military-Industrial complex runs the show and The West is propping up corrupt regimes.

CH47A wrote:

Using Wikipedia for this information I have New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Poland with armed forces personnel in Afghanistan at the beginning of 2021, along with the U.S. troops. I am not sure I fully grasp the idea of "some NATO support" as it seems to be presented in that post as being of no significance. Maybe I am taking that sentence and context in the wrong way. I apologize if I am. Troops that show the flag of a nation in any AO is of significance.

The idea that NATO members agreeing with the idea to end having troops in that AO isn't such a big deal because the U.S. has some sort of special role in NATO . . . well, I have a difficulty grasping the idea of that sort of belittling of the troops of other nations in the AO. Well, again, I could be reading that wrong. Sorry, if I am.

I suppose I would have to study if NATO has always fallen in line with U.S. thinking through the many years of the existence of NATO. They never publicly disagreed with U.S. thinking? I don't know.

There's a respect factor here --- respect for even one active duty soldier in an AO, no matter from what nation. Five other nations with troops in that AO at the beginning of 2021. That is a significant factor in diplomatic circles, even if it is not with the general public.

Norway had special forces in Afghanistan from October 2001 until 25. june 2021:

https://www.forsvaret.no/aktuelt-og-pre ... uttrekning

Norwegian special forces has returned again to Kabul in August to help with evacuation of Norwegian people, personell and Afghan helpers:

https://www.nrk.no/norge/norske-spesial ... 1.15621466

Norwegian hospital at Kabul airport is getting ready to close down by the end of month:

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/34 ... -om-en-uke


Use google translate: https://translate.google.com/

Was listening to NPR today (morning) and they were 3 women on at panel discussing AO. The jest of the comments were that the West had a responsibility to ensure that women's rights activists be gotten out and that the Taliban be held accountable for human rights (again by the West).

I feel for them just like I'm sure our forefathers felt for the French, Dutch, Filipinos and many more when they fell to Axis forces. However it seemed to me that the panel forget we lost this war. They danced around the issue of why Afghanistan couldn't produce a leader of all their tribes to unite against tyranny. Think how the Russian men and women fought fanatically against the Fascists. The Taliban aren't supermen.

Are European, ANZAC and North American troops going to be responsible for ensuring these human rights? Monty, Patton and MacArthur are not coming to liberate Afghanistan.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Was listening to NPR today (morning) and they were 3 other women on the panel. The jest of the comments were that the West had a responsibility to ensure that women's rights activists be gotten out and that the Taliban be held accountable for human rights (again by the West).

I feel for them just like I'm sure our forefathers felt for the French, Dutch, Filipinos and many more when they fell to Axis forces. However it seemed to me that the panel forget we lost this war. They danced around the issue of why Afghanistan couldn't produce a leader of all their tribes to unite against tyranny. Think how the Russian men and women fought fanatically against the Fascists. The Taliban aren't supermen.

Are European, ANZAC and North American troops going to be responsible for ensuring these human rights?

This is a difficult moral area. What responsibility does the West have to fix the cultural issues present in Afghanistan?
One could argue we should ensure that what occurred leading up to 9/11 never happens again.

Would it ever happen again? I am not sure. I think Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have shown that the Middle East would prefer not to invite the west back into their affairs.

On the rights issues. Should NATO/UN jump in to repair countries as was done after WW2? In those efforts, blame was placed on the leadership that openly attacked other countries.
In the case of Afghanistan, most of the citizens never understood what occurred by Al-Qaeda, and they never understood the connection to the Taliban that was erasing historical artifacts.

I think it is time to leave. Even if I doubt Afghanistan will be ok going forward.

I recall reading that the US came really close to a similar occupation of Somalia.

The Taliban aren't invading a foreign country, that's the main issue. Otherwise there would be at least some resistance from the locals. Combined with the western forces, it should have been enough to wipe out the Taliban. Instead the opposite happened, they got local support.

In France under the Nazis, the situation was different on many levels, for one I doubt people thought the Germans would stay for decades/forever, so there was less of an incentive to resist. Also the Germans were not that bad with people, they weren't enforcing some silly religious rules on them under penalty of death, and even Jews were safe at first. Half the country was also free of them for some time. And many men were sent to work in Germany so not available to fight. Despite all that there was a resistance movement that managed to do serious damage, and continued despite harsh reprisals, including indiscriminate killings.

In Afghanistan there is one group resisting in one region.

That's what I don't get. If it's so bad that you are breaking down the doors to get out, why not fight? Think of the courage it took for the Poles to take on the Germans in 1944.
Maybe we should have put a Afghan General in charge. Or had the Turks run the place.

casinterest wrote:

This is a difficult moral area. What responsibility does the West have to fix the cultural issues present in Afghanistan?
One could argue we should ensure that what occurred leading up to 9/11 never happens again.

That would also require a substantial reevaluation of lingering partnerships and economic ties with Gulf states. Every administration since 9/11 has pacified them, and the last four years were particularly hard to watch.

Things seem to be taking a dangerous turn with the Taliban banning Afghans from leaving and the firm date of Allies gone by 8/31. Understand US is already pulling some troops out.

On August 29th, I'd start flying B-52's and B-1's in patterns over the airport so this doesn't turn in to Dunkirk.

The US still has troops in Europe, 76 years after V-E day, Korean War is still without resolution and troops in Korea and Japan 68 years later; troops in Kosovo 22 years later than hostilities ended there. Another 15-20 years with 2500-5000 troops in Afghanistan might have produced two generations of citizens accustomed to women doctors and teachers, children of both sexes getting educations; travel in foreign lands. In 1975, there was an American University in Kabul, women were students and wore western garb, tourists traveled there. We’ve forgotten history to the death of the current Afghan generation.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Things seem to be taking a dangerous turn with the Taliban banning Afghans from leaving and the firm date of Allies gone by 8/31. Understand US is already pulling some troops out.

On August 29th, I'd start flying B-52's and B-1's in patterns over the airport so this doesn't turn in to Dunkirk.

Lacking an ocean and small fishing boats, it won’t be Dunkirk. Anyone, US, TCN or Afghan who worked with the US, will be at the tender mercy of the Taliban. The economy is imploding, the Taliban doesn’t have a clue how to fix it; they’ll get desperate soon and foreigners will be ransom bait.

What, precisely, would you order a B-52 commander to bomb?

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

This is a difficult moral area. What responsibility does the West have to fix the cultural issues present in Afghanistan?
One could argue we should ensure that what occurred leading up to 9/11 never happens again.

That would also require a substantial reevaluation of lingering partnerships and economic ties with Gulf states. Every administration since 9/11 has pacified them, and the last four years were particularly hard to watch.

More correctly, every administration since FDR and, for the Brits, back to WW I and Lawerence.

https://www.history.com/news/fdr-saudi-arabia-king-oil

We’re not gonna fix “culture” of the ME, it’s not amenable to fixing. They have 1400 years of Islamic history versus our 2000 years of Judeo-Christian history. Cultural norms flows from that history and neither is changing. The scurvy idea that somehow the “West” and ideals are so attractive that they’ll be embraced by all cultures is simply hubris. Hubris that got us where we are.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

This is a difficult moral area. What responsibility does the West have to fix the cultural issues present in Afghanistan?
One could argue we should ensure that what occurred leading up to 9/11 never happens again.

That would also require a substantial reevaluation of lingering partnerships and economic ties with Gulf states. Every administration since 9/11 has pacified them, and the last four years were particularly hard to watch.

More correctly, every administration since FDR and, for the Brits, back to WW I and Lawerence.

https://www.history.com/news/fdr-saudi-arabia-king-oil

We’re not gonna fix “culture” of the ME, it’s not amenable to fixing. They have 1400 years of Islamic history versus our 2000 years of Judeo-Christian history. Cultural norms flows from that history and neither is changing. The scurvy idea that somehow the “West” and ideals are so attractive that they’ll be embraced by all cultures is simply hubris. Hubris that got us where we are.

Granted, but these calculations should have changed after 9/11, and didn't. There were no asset seizures, no limits on the royals' foreign trade, no quid pro quo on UAE/KSA misadventures in Yemen (in fact we helped even more). Some of their college students committed crimes in the US and got away Scot free, and their militaries get training and red carpet service at US bases. It makes the mind boggle. And now the Taliban are back in AFG, thanks in part to them. Oh well, LMT stock is up up up...just remember before posting anything about Judeo-Christian values that this country's only lasting value is $$$.

I best apologize up front on this post, because I have seen a whole bunch of folks posting about religion in one manner or another, as if that is a key issue. I don't think it is.

I think it is simply a matter of tribal troubles. Very, very basic style brain workings --- 'My tribe is number one so take your tribe and get over that hill and unless we need to talk or trade or barter, we don't want to see any of you. And when talking is necessary, you just send a couple folks to talk and then they get back over that hill immediately after we are finished.'

Really so simple. We seem to like to throw in all sorts of heavy duty thinking and reasoning and all that, but basic, basic tribal stuff is what I think is going on and has been going on for a whole bunch of years.

Now for a U.S. citizen all we have to do is study what happened with all those Indian groups that lived in North America before all us "western" folks showed up and there it is --- tribes.

Also, in Afghanistan, the inhospitable land makes it so much easier for that tribal style to remain.

The one big hope now is the new highways are going to break that tribal style. What are the new highways? The one that allows me to post this right now is one of the hundreds of thousands all over this globe.

How about a neat solution. You hand out some cell phones that require a call once a week to some tribe's gal/fella about 200 kilometers away. I mean by "required" the cell phone is programmed to shut off if that owner does not make that call and actually talk to somebody for 15 minutes. Any sort of talking. But the program has to actually be able to know that talking is going on and the phone didn't connect with the other phone and then the owner just sat it on a bench for 15 minutes.

And I am sure some better minds out there could tweak my idea and add some extra good stuff to it.

We are sort of using technology to de-program tribal thinking. Get some of them tech giants to invest about 100 million dollars on special cell phones and see if that might solve an old-old-old problem. Most importantly, get all that killing and forcing this and that on others to stop. Will take a couple of decades maybe, but ... well, what do you think? (Do we need a new thread for this?)

CH47A wrote:

I best apologize up front on this post, because I have seen a whole bunch of folks posting about religion in one manner or another, as if that is a key issue. I don't think it is.

I think it is simply a matter of tribal troubles. Very, very basic style brain workings --- 'My tribe is number one so take your tribe and get over that hill and unless we need to talk or trade or barter, we don't want to see any of you. And when talking is necessary, you just send a couple folks to talk and then they get back over that hill immediately after we are finished.'

Really so simple. We seem to like to throw in all sorts of heavy duty thinking and reasoning and all that, but basic, basic tribal stuff is what I think is going on and has been going on for a whole bunch of years.

Now for a U.S. citizen all we have to do is study what happened with all those Indian groups that lived in North America before all us "western" folks showed up and there it is --- tribes.

Also, in Afghanistan, the inhospitable land makes it so much easier for that tribal style to remain.

The one big hope now is the new highways are going to break that tribal style. What are the new highways? The one that allows me to post this right now is one of the hundreds of thousands all over this globe.

How about a neat solution. You hand out some cell phones that require a call once a week to some tribe's gal/fella about 200 kilometers away. I mean by "required" the cell phone is programmed to shut off if that owner does not make that call and actually talk to somebody for 15 minutes. Any sort of talking. But the program has to actually be able to know that talking is going on and the phone didn't connect with the other phone and then the owner just sat it on a bench for 15 minutes.

And I am sure some better minds out there could tweak my idea and add some extra good stuff to it.

We are sort of using technology to de-program tribal thinking. Get some of them tech giants to invest about 100 million dollars on special cell phones and see if that might solve an old-old-old problem. Most importantly, get all that killing and forcing this and that on others to stop. Will take a couple of decades maybe, but ... well, what do you think? (Do we need a new thread for this?)

Tribalism is certainly germane to discussing the present and future of AFG. I see where you're going with the cellphone idea, but the problem with it is there's no way to control that kind of human development effort in a country where institutions are weak and contraband items (including tech) are so commonplace. It's hard enough in America. The current paradigm in AFG will also never allow women to receive free communication tools because it would salt their game.

Edit: Answer to the 747 fella who named his bird 'Aaron' ---

I think we dig into another old style of human interaction --- bribery. I'm surprised you didn't hit me for that huge sum of money I proposed. I think about half of that goes to some really clever bribery.

Just have to be upfront from the beginning and be honest that bribery is going to be a big part of the program. It shouldn't surprise anyone. Bribery is an old style and I understand they are very good at it in that part of our planet, if I'll be forgiven some stereotyping.

Heh, we make movies all the time that seem to place bribery up as some sort of neat trick of some past gangster folks, so we know about the tool. Let's use it for some good. Seems a lot better than bombing people.

The Taliban are claiming women will be able to work (study ? not that clear), and that they want to keep skilled people, that the west shouldn't take judges etc. If it's true that's a good thing, if they lied, or can't control the more radical elements, ending up in many killings, then all hopes of recognition will vanish (aside from countries who don't mind a bit of a purge from time to time).

scbriml wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The US still has troops in Europe, 76 years after V-E day, Korean War is still without resolution and troops in Korea and Japan 68 years later; troops in Kosovo 22 years later than hostilities ended there. Another 15-20 years with 2500-5000 troops in Afghanistan might have produced two generations of citizens accustomed to women doctors and teachers, children of both sexes getting educations; travel in foreign lands. In 1975, there was an American University in Kabul, women were students and wore western garb, tourists traveled there. We’ve forgotten history to the death of the current Afghan generation.

There are significant differences - in all the cited case there was no insurgency shooting and bombing you on a daily basis. In the specific case of Europe the main reason was because America preferred to fight WWIII (if it happened) on the ground in Europe, not on home soil. The Taliban evolved from the Mujahadeen which was armed and trained by the West. Irony much?

Three and a half thousand dead allied troops (mainly Americans and Brits but not forgetting the others) and trillions of £££s and $$$s wasted on revenge that achieved nothing except alienating even more Muslims against the West. Bush and Blair must be so proud.

Yeah and today troops in Europe are for support in these far away wars, not to stabilize Europe nor defend it.

To stay in Afghanistan the situation should have been improving, but it wasn't. I'm French and we have our own views on nation building, we also have a steady supply of Arab and Persian speakers, "special relationships" with countries in the ME including Iraq and Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Massoud was a well known figure in France and had a relationship with us, in fact his son who is still fighting is asking for help in general, but also especially to France, yet we decided the cause was lost back in 2014.

One issue was that while Kabul was evolving, the rest of the country especially outside cities wasn't. Another was that any bit of infrastructure built (like schools) was an easy target for Taliban attacks.

If anyone still wonders why Afghan army folded so quickly they probably should just watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S84bntUzY1U&t=1s

It's basically stoned teenagers only held together by a few Western soldiers. Quite painful to watch actually.

CH47A wrote:

We are sort of using technology to de-program tribal thinking.

Have you seen the Republican -vs- Democrats threads here? It's just as tribal thinking as seen in Afghanistan, minus the bloodshed (usually).

If anything, technology is being used to keep everyone seperate.
There's a group for right wingers and one for left wingers.
There's a group for theists and one for atheists.
There's a group for pro-vax and one for anti-vax.
And ... so ... on ....

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Things seem to be taking a dangerous turn with the Taliban banning Afghans from leaving and the firm date of Allies gone by 8/31. Understand US is already pulling some troops out.

On August 29th, I'd start flying B-52's and B-1's in patterns over the airport so this doesn't turn in to Dunkirk.

Lacking an ocean and small fishing boats, it won’t be Dunkirk. Anyone, US, TCN or Afghan who worked with the US, will be at the tender mercy of the Taliban. The economy is imploding, the Taliban doesn’t have a clue how to fix it; they’ll get desperate soon and foreigners will be ransom bait.

What, precisely, would you order a B-52 commander to bomb?

I was going to say Corregidor but only a General and his staff were evacuated. More like the Chosin Reservoir. But we still used boats to evacuate the Marines, Brits and ROK troops.

I'm keeping those bombers in the air so those last C-17's leaving on 8/31 aren't mortared on the ramps like Khe Sahn. I imagine the airport perimeter on the 31st will be collapsing as the last paratroopers are loaded up. Maybe the Turks can stay and provide cover.

FYI - you can probably tell I'm a firm believer in "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” plus I read alot and watch Mark Felton

scbriml wrote:

JJJ wrote:

If anyone still wonders why Afghan army folded so quickly they probably should just watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S84bntUzY1U&t=1s

It's basically stoned teenagers only held together by a few Western soldiers. Quite painful to watch actually.

That plus the Taliban's standard tactic of paying them to not fight.

Which works even better when they aren't getting paid regularly.

I just read about Glenn Beck’s charitable flight to help refugees. BUT, there’s a catch! You have to be a Christian convert. If you subscribe to a different Abrahamic faith, sorry, you and your family are out of luck. Of course Glenn couldn’t just do the right thing and help anyone who needs it. No, you have to subscribe to the ancient superstitions that he adheres to.

CitizenJustin wrote:

I just read about Glenn Beck’s charitable flight to help refugees. BUT, there’s a catch! You have to be a Christian convert. If you subscribe to a different Abrahamic faith, sorry, you and your family are out of luck. Of course Glenn couldn’t just do the right thing and help anyone who needs it. No, you have to subscribe to the ancient superstitions that he adheres to.

His money, his toys. If he has 200 seats and there’s thousands needing them, there has to be some discrimination.

UK defense secretary advises Afghans to flee across borders rather than by air

Ben Wallace briefs UK lawmakers on situation, admits not everyone will get out on rescue flights from Kabul airport

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-defens ... an-by-air/

Advice is getting Real now.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I just read about Glenn Beck’s charitable flight to help refugees. BUT, there’s a catch! You have to be a Christian convert. If you subscribe to a different Abrahamic faith, sorry, you and your family are out of luck. Of course Glenn couldn’t just do the right thing and help anyone who needs it. No, you have to subscribe to the ancient superstitions that he adheres to.

His money, his toys. If he has 200 seats and there’s thousands needing them, there has to be some discrimination.

That is so very Christian. How many hungry were turned away from being fed? What are the exceptions when He said "go feed my sheep"? Book, chapter, and verse please.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

UK defense secretary advises Afghans to flee across borders rather than by air

Ben Wallace briefs UK lawmakers on situation, admits not everyone will get out on rescue flights from Kabul airport

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-defens ... an-by-air/

Advice is getting Real now.

31st deadline business was brought up a few times in that article and I assume we can trust The Guardian from whence that article seems to have originated.

Mr. Blair was pretty much on target when he stated that political style of playing games with people's lives by having that deadline was ... well, I best not repeat Mr. Blair's words or thinking, but I view that shite of a deadline as bovine excrement.

This is a bloody combat situation and you don't go telling your adversary your plans.

And, of course, the Taliban leadership can now look so cool by stating to the folks under them that they have ordered all the allies or opposing military forces out by that August 31st deadline and them Taliban folks can play that card as to how cool and tough they are and now we have the defense leadership in one major player in this bovine ... that particular leader is now stating that some folks better go over some border?! That has got to make some leaders and/or leadership teams in some other nations bordering Afghanistan really happy.

Oh yes, we don't mind a couple hundred thousand folks coming over our border on the advice of a major player in all this, the UK. Oh no, everyone is welcome.

Give me a break. There is a need for a new vaccine to counter the Biden ... Okay, I better not be disrespectful to our new CIC. Gotta have respect for the results of living in a democratic country --- sometimes the CIC will be ... can't finish that thought either.

Of course, I could be selling that Biden fella short. He might make a big announcement on August 30th that he was pulling the Taliban's leg all along and he'll bloody well pull all the troops and assets out when he is good and ready after the job is properly finished.

Frankly folks, this sure is a history lesson that will be studied by young folks in a couple hundred years and they are going wonder what happened to that entity that was called the U.S.A. and all those in that thing called NATO that decided to go along with that entity called the U.S.A. and I wonder if ... Nope, better not finish that, either.

CH47A wrote:

This is a bloody combat situation and you don't go telling your adversary your plans.

Not a combat situation - the exit was negotiated in 2019. Fighting has been between Afghans and Afghans.



Image source: Yahoo News

https://news.yahoo.com/only-trump-mike- ... 07562.html

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I just read about Glenn Beck’s charitable flight to help refugees. BUT, there’s a catch! You have to be a Christian convert. If you subscribe to a different Abrahamic faith, sorry, you and your family are out of luck. Of course Glenn couldn’t just do the right thing and help anyone who needs it. No, you have to subscribe to the ancient superstitions that he adheres to.

His money, his toys. If he has 200 seats and there’s thousands needing them, there has to be some discrimination.

That is so very Christian. How many hungry were turned away from being fed? What are the exceptions when He said "go feed my sheep"? Book, chapter, and verse please.

I think you are forgetting just how religiously extremist and racist most Afghanis are. If BLM sent a flight for black people in Afghanistan you would be saying a different thing.

CH47A wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

UK defense secretary advises Afghans to flee across borders rather than by air

Ben Wallace briefs UK lawmakers on situation, admits not everyone will get out on rescue flights from Kabul airport

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-defens ... an-by-air/

Advice is getting Real now.

31st deadline business was brought up a few times in that article and I assume we can trust The Guardian from whence that article seems to have originated.

Mr. Blair was pretty much on target when he stated that political style of playing games with people's lives by having that deadline was ... well, I best not repeat Mr. Blair's words or thinking, but I view that shite of a deadline as bovine excrement.

This is a bloody combat situation and you don't go telling your adversary your plans.

And, of course, the Taliban leadership can now look so cool by stating to the folks under them that they have ordered all the allies or opposing military forces out by that August 31st deadline and them Taliban folks can play that card as to how cool and tough they are and now we have the defense leadership in one major player in this bovine ... that particular leader is now stating that some folks better go over some border?! That has got to make some leaders and/or leadership teams in some other nations bordering Afghanistan really happy.

Oh yes, we don't mind a couple hundred thousand folks coming over our border on the advice of a major player in all this, the UK. Oh no, everyone is welcome.

Give me a break. There is a need for a new vaccine to counter the Biden ... Okay, I better not be disrespectful to our new CIC. Gotta have respect for the results of living in a democratic country --- sometimes the CIC will be ... can't finish that thought either.

Of course, I could be selling that Biden fella short. He might make a big announcement on August 30th that he was pulling the Taliban's leg all along and he'll bloody well pull all the troops and assets out when he is good and ready after the job is properly finished.

Frankly folks, this sure is a history lesson that will be studied by young folks in a couple hundred years and they are going wonder what happened to that entity that was called the U.S.A. and all those in that thing called NATO that decided to go along with that entity called the U.S.A. and I wonder if ... Nope, better not finish that, either.

There are a few things that you're missing here:

1. The pullout was a policy that was supported by the majority of people in both the US and UK before last week, so it must have been the execution of the pullout that people are concerned about.

2. The majority in the UK are against accepting asylum seekers and refugees. The debate seems to be about whether to accept those who directly helped the UK. It's not a political feasibility to accept further refugees beyond the 5000 per year, especially when most of the Middle East is on the verge of collapse anyway.

3. Why would you be in Afghanistan anyway? It was known to most people that the US was pulling out and the dates were publicly available.

I think it is likely that the Taliban will take control of Kabul Airport from September and will continue to let those with foreign passports leave. it will only be those without foreign visas who will not be able to leave, but sentiment in the West isn't exactly supportive of accepting them either.

TokyoImperialPa, I can assure you that I am missing more than a "few" things.

But you have me thinking now about that fella who stated something about maybe some folks better head for a border to get out. You state there is a limit to how many the UK will allow to enter their lands.

If I were on the leadership team of a nation that had some sort of limit to how many folks can be let in per year - - - well, I think I'd keep my mouth shut about that topic of folks going over somebody's border into a neighboring country. Of course, I don't mean a UK neighbor, but a neighbor to that country called Afghanistan.

Heck, I'd just carry a copy of a newspaper with that article and advice from that high ranking leadership team fella and tell the border official where I'm heading that I am just following that high class fella's advice.

And I'd have an extra copy of that article in my shoe. That border official will confiscate my first copy, right? Then ask me: Who advised you to come here?

Aaron747, I will apologize upfront and state that I have the thinking style that when I have a thousand folks with weapons surrounding a piece of land that I am asking my own charges to guard with their own weapons and everyone, them and my people, are loading live ammo and - - - well, you can give that any title you wish - - - but them folks with them weapons and orders to use those weapons if need be - - - that is a combat zone to them. So I view it as they do.

Sure, you can use all sorts of neat diplomatic language for this-or-that, but a live round hitting somebody in some area of the body not protected by body protective gear, well that is a combat zone.

Maybe you want to use some other fancy language I seem to remember was once so highly praised as proper vocabulary - - - a police action?

I'll tell you what, Aaron747, at my next VFW meeting I'll ask if anyone doing duty right now at that airfield in Kabul is going to be allowed to join the VFW and then we'll know if it is decided to be titled a combat zone, or not. That is, decided by some folks that are much smarter than I and have much more political power than I. There's a reason why the CIC feels the need to go do a speech at our annual conventions.

CH47A wrote:

Aaron747, I will apologize upfront and state that I have the thinking style that when I have a thousand folks with weapons surrounding a piece of land that I am asking my own charges to guard with their own weapons and everyone, them and my people, are loading live ammo and - - - well, you can give that any title you wish - - - but them folks with them weapons and orders to use those weapons if need be - - - that is a combat zone to them. So I view it as they do.

Sure, you can use all sorts of neat diplomatic language for this-or-that, but a live round hitting somebody in some area of the body not protected by body protective gear, well that is a combat zone.

Maybe you want to use some other fancy language I seem to remember was once so highly praised as proper vocabulary - - - a police action?

I'll tell you what, Aaron747, at my next VFW meeting I'll ask if anyone doing duty right now at that airfield in Kabul is going to be allowed to join the VFW and then we'll know if it is decided to be titled a combat zone, or not. That is, decided by some folks that are much smarter than I and have much more political power than I. There's a reason why the CIC feels the need to go do a speech at our annual conventions.

With all due respect, none of that is relevant to the facts on the ground. Yes, troops are there, but the standing agreement the Taliban made with Secretary Pompeo is that our troops would not be attacked and the US would be out according to an agreed upon timetable. That is more or less what has transpired, minus adjustments to the timetable. It was their intention to regain power in exchange for our folks getting out unharmed, and that was basically what Pompeo enabled. That is armistice, not combat.

par13del wrote:

Second question, we all know that the USA basic military tactic once in country is overwhelming fire support, since they have drawn down the bulk of those supports, how are they going to extend the 31st deadline without bring back more of that combat firepower? Going out into Kabul or the country side to collect folks in an active combat zones requires a lot of co-ordination, little bird helicopters are one thing, they are vulnerable to Stingers, RPG's and heavy machine guns, those all have to be suppressed, which requires more combat power. B-52's are not much help in Kabul. So unless we see the USA flying in more combat troops, artillery pieces and other combat equipment, the 31st is not only a political but a military logistical hard line in the sand.

It would take a major provocation (like shooting down an evacuation flight) for the US to escalate.

There's an agreement in force. For all the posturing the US and everyone else wants out of that wasp's nest, everyone has admitted defeat and is willing to move on.

Everything points at the US wanting to comply with the agreement with the Taliban (those discussions with British forces about operating outside the airport area) and some politician upthread already warned people to try to get out by ground instead.

The internal political affects in the USA from what is a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan has considerably hurt President Biden and Democratic Party politicians. With other factors, it could mean the Republican party takes back the Congress in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 even if not Trump. While a lot of the blame for problems with the withdrawal process can and must be put on Trump's racist and anti-Muslim maladministration, the lack of a proper transition to the Biden Administration, horrible intelligence information, made too many of its own mistakes and due to the timing, will be blamed for it. Meanwhile a serious humanitarian crises is getting much worse in Afghanistan and the USA's over 40 years of policy there has turned out to be worthless except for the MIC.

par13del wrote:

So two basic questions, how much more folks will the Taliban allow to leave, after all, it is their country to run and for it to be a country it requires people, if so many people want to leave and the majority of them are / were foreigners, what exactly were they doing in country and is this where the billions were spent?

Second question, we all know that the USA basic military tactic once in country is overwhelming fire support, once they have drawn down the bulk of those supports, how are they going to extend the 31st deadline without bring back more of that combat firepower? Going out into Kabul or the country side to collect folks in an active combat zones requires a lot of co-ordination, little bird helicopters are one thing, they are vulnerable to Stingers, RPG's and heavy machine guns, those all have to be suppressed, which requires more combat power. B-52's are not much help in Kabul. So unless we see the USA flying in more combat troops, artillery pieces and other combat equipment, the 31st is not only a political but a military logistical hard line in the sand.

1) The Taliban have always said that those with documentation from foreign countries would be allowed to leave. The question has never referred to foreign citizens, it has been about foreign visa holders and those eligible for normal foreign visas. I doubt that the Taliban would allow asylum seekers and the like to leave Afghanistan through Kabul Airport.

2) The US will be leaving on the 31st August, with all resources being poured into those citizens who want to leave before the deadline. Anyone who wants to stay or people such as US visa holders would be left to deal with the Afghani emigration system without US embassy support as any normal US visa holder would need to.