News14 mins ago
Up To 600 Afghan Interpreters Given The Right To Come To Britain.
109 Answers
http://
Is it right to allow these 'paid' foreign employees of the UK, the right to reside in this country?
It is said they will receive free travel to the UK and accommodation paid for their first three months.
Who will be paying after those three months expire? I think you have got it in one.
Is it right to allow these 'paid' foreign employees of the UK, the right to reside in this country?
It is said they will receive free travel to the UK and accommodation paid for their first three months.
Who will be paying after those three months expire? I think you have got it in one.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim360
/// I don't even think you can argue that they did "know the risks" -- it's a crazy enemy that decides to attack those who are just providing translation services, ///
Oh come on jim surely you are not naive enough to believe that are you.
/// and I'll bet that not many interpreters expected their lives to be under threat. ///
No not in a civilised country but we are talking about Afghanistan here, where everyone is at risk not just interpreters.
/// On grounds of consistency, too, we should allow the interpreters to live here. A few years back Gurkhas won their right to retire to the UK -- and Nepal isn't even a country with such dangers. ///
There is a difference, they were and still are part of the British Army, who have fought side by side with us against our enemies.
/// The people who will suffer most are the Afghans themselves. The single biggest tragedy in the world is whenever anyone suffers through no fault of their own. ///
Try saying that to the families of those British service men and women, or those who have suffered with lost limbs and other horrific injuries.
/// We should do what we can to minimise that suffering. 600 people is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it's 600 people who now have a chance to live without constant fear of death. ///
Can we help it if they have allowed their country to get in such a mess so much so that others have had to risk their lives to try and make it safe for them to live in, we tried, did our best, but obviously failed, they can't expect more than that.
Should we now only give a select few the advantage of being safe, while not caring what happens to the others, after all we can't be expected to hand out a welcome to all those feeling unsafe?
/// I don't even think you can argue that they did "know the risks" -- it's a crazy enemy that decides to attack those who are just providing translation services, ///
Oh come on jim surely you are not naive enough to believe that are you.
/// and I'll bet that not many interpreters expected their lives to be under threat. ///
No not in a civilised country but we are talking about Afghanistan here, where everyone is at risk not just interpreters.
/// On grounds of consistency, too, we should allow the interpreters to live here. A few years back Gurkhas won their right to retire to the UK -- and Nepal isn't even a country with such dangers. ///
There is a difference, they were and still are part of the British Army, who have fought side by side with us against our enemies.
/// The people who will suffer most are the Afghans themselves. The single biggest tragedy in the world is whenever anyone suffers through no fault of their own. ///
Try saying that to the families of those British service men and women, or those who have suffered with lost limbs and other horrific injuries.
/// We should do what we can to minimise that suffering. 600 people is not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it's 600 people who now have a chance to live without constant fear of death. ///
Can we help it if they have allowed their country to get in such a mess so much so that others have had to risk their lives to try and make it safe for them to live in, we tried, did our best, but obviously failed, they can't expect more than that.
Should we now only give a select few the advantage of being safe, while not caring what happens to the others, after all we can't be expected to hand out a welcome to all those feeling unsafe?
AOG
You wrote:
Should we now only give a select few the advantage of being safe, while not caring what happens to the others, after all we can't be expected to hand out a welcome to all those feeling unsafe?
No - but I don't see a problem with granting residency to those who have done so much to help our soldiers and put their lives on the line.
Remember - we absolutely did NOT go to Afghanistan for purely altruistic motives.
You wrote:
Should we now only give a select few the advantage of being safe, while not caring what happens to the others, after all we can't be expected to hand out a welcome to all those feeling unsafe?
No - but I don't see a problem with granting residency to those who have done so much to help our soldiers and put their lives on the line.
Remember - we absolutely did NOT go to Afghanistan for purely altruistic motives.
/we can't be expected to hand out a welcome to all those feeling unsafe?/
We're not
We are selecting a small number who are at greatly increased risk because they served alongside our troops
Really aog, based on these shameful posts of yours, you are not even fit to meet any of these Afghans at the airport and carry their bags
We're not
We are selecting a small number who are at greatly increased risk because they served alongside our troops
Really aog, based on these shameful posts of yours, you are not even fit to meet any of these Afghans at the airport and carry their bags
LazyGun
/// Such actions should be factored into the cost of prosecuting any foreign milirary adventures. ///
Foreign Military Adventures, Foreign Invasion or a Police Action, eh?
Well I think we must agree to disagree since judging by the above extracts, we can all see from what hymn sheet you are singing from.
/// Such actions should be factored into the cost of prosecuting any foreign milirary adventures. ///
Foreign Military Adventures, Foreign Invasion or a Police Action, eh?
Well I think we must agree to disagree since judging by the above extracts, we can all see from what hymn sheet you are singing from.
Well in that case you have nothing to complain about because you haven't lost a limb or suffered a horrific injury recently.
Incidentally, I think we should stay in Afghanistan until it's safe, or as safe as can be. Don't presume that I am advocating withdrawal. I think it would be a shame if we only cared for the Afghans who worked for our army. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore everyone equally instead.
There is an old story about the man on a beach, throwing Starfish back into the sea. "What is the point? there are so many of them and you can't possibly rescue them all," says a passer-by. Says the man, throwing another starfish into the sea as far as possible, "Well, I saved that one."
Incidentally, I think we should stay in Afghanistan until it's safe, or as safe as can be. Don't presume that I am advocating withdrawal. I think it would be a shame if we only cared for the Afghans who worked for our army. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore everyone equally instead.
There is an old story about the man on a beach, throwing Starfish back into the sea. "What is the point? there are so many of them and you can't possibly rescue them all," says a passer-by. Says the man, throwing another starfish into the sea as far as possible, "Well, I saved that one."
@AoG We most certainly disagree.
You paint the afghan conflict as a little local argument between uncivilised barbarians, to whom we graciously extended the privilege of playing host to our soldiers and our military might - and the pesky blighters are ungrateful! How very dare they? And those foreign johnnies that translate for us - well, we paid them, they get to take their chances when we leave, despite being high value targets.
Of course it was a foreign adventure, with a nebulous campaign end-point and no exit strategy.You would have thought we might have learnt some lessons from our last military adventure in afghanistan and the bloody retreat from Kabul.
We did not go into afghanistan out of a sense of altruism. We went out of a stated obligation to deprive al-quaeda of training camps, but as with all such adventures, mission creep sets in.
You begrudge these people a safe harbour following their aid - but how much did the whole afghan campaign cost the british taxpayer? How much safer are our borders now?
If we can afford a few billion to garrison parts of afghanistan for the best part of a decade, we can offer citizenship to a few hundred locals who have aided our armed forces immeasurably.
You paint the afghan conflict as a little local argument between uncivilised barbarians, to whom we graciously extended the privilege of playing host to our soldiers and our military might - and the pesky blighters are ungrateful! How very dare they? And those foreign johnnies that translate for us - well, we paid them, they get to take their chances when we leave, despite being high value targets.
Of course it was a foreign adventure, with a nebulous campaign end-point and no exit strategy.You would have thought we might have learnt some lessons from our last military adventure in afghanistan and the bloody retreat from Kabul.
We did not go into afghanistan out of a sense of altruism. We went out of a stated obligation to deprive al-quaeda of training camps, but as with all such adventures, mission creep sets in.
You begrudge these people a safe harbour following their aid - but how much did the whole afghan campaign cost the british taxpayer? How much safer are our borders now?
If we can afford a few billion to garrison parts of afghanistan for the best part of a decade, we can offer citizenship to a few hundred locals who have aided our armed forces immeasurably.
"Oh come on jim surely you are not naive enough to believe that are you. "
This is not an argument.
"There is a difference, they were and still are part of the British Army, who have fought side by side with us against our enemies. "
These interpreters have done the same - they've been there on the front line with our soldiers. Plenty have been murdered and some even tortured for doing so. Furthermore, these are people who took the risk of learning English in a country where doing so can, if you're not careful, earn you a death sentence.
I'll ask you again - how do you think a soldier who served alongside them would feel? Zeuhl knows one and has reported his opinion. What's your reaction to that?
This is not an argument.
"There is a difference, they were and still are part of the British Army, who have fought side by side with us against our enemies. "
These interpreters have done the same - they've been there on the front line with our soldiers. Plenty have been murdered and some even tortured for doing so. Furthermore, these are people who took the risk of learning English in a country where doing so can, if you're not careful, earn you a death sentence.
I'll ask you again - how do you think a soldier who served alongside them would feel? Zeuhl knows one and has reported his opinion. What's your reaction to that?
Peter Pedant
/// Old Git - did you er read what you have just posted ? ///
/// I cant work out where you stand. ///
Well that comes as no surprise to me, since you also cannot take a telling over your misuse of my username.
/// 'Who will be paying after those three months expire ? ' you ask.
Well, we will: it is part of the expensive package we negotiated, so we knew that anyway. ///
Now read this slowly, Who will be paying after those three months expire, yes that is perfectly true that is what I asked, since it was announced that "They will get free travel to the UK and accommodation for first three months".
It was you who added "Well, we will: it is part of the expensive package we negotiated, so we knew that anyway".
I was unaware that we had negotiated an expensive package as you put, if there is one please supply me with proof that although we have said it will be free for the first three months we won't also be paying after that period expires?
/// 'I think you have got it in one' means you/one has to pay for whatever service you/one has negotiated. ///
Why if I am correct in my assumption, would they say it is only for three months?
/// Old Git - did you er read what you have just posted ? ///
/// I cant work out where you stand. ///
Well that comes as no surprise to me, since you also cannot take a telling over your misuse of my username.
/// 'Who will be paying after those three months expire ? ' you ask.
Well, we will: it is part of the expensive package we negotiated, so we knew that anyway. ///
Now read this slowly, Who will be paying after those three months expire, yes that is perfectly true that is what I asked, since it was announced that "They will get free travel to the UK and accommodation for first three months".
It was you who added "Well, we will: it is part of the expensive package we negotiated, so we knew that anyway".
I was unaware that we had negotiated an expensive package as you put, if there is one please supply me with proof that although we have said it will be free for the first three months we won't also be paying after that period expires?
/// 'I think you have got it in one' means you/one has to pay for whatever service you/one has negotiated. ///
Why if I am correct in my assumption, would they say it is only for three months?
-- answer removed --
sp1814
/// I mean, if you're the kind of person who will risk your life working alongside soldiers in a war zone, you're hardly likely to want to spend your life sitting on a sofa, shovelling Gregg's pasties down your neck and claiming off the social. ///
Mmmmm, seems a different attitude from the one you show our brave soldiers after returning from a war zone.
You are quick to point out how they are jamming up the prison population, only taking on soldiering because they have failed academically, and not far short of also accusing them of "sitting on a sofa, shovelling Gregg's pasties down their necks and claiming off the social.
/// I mean, if you're the kind of person who will risk your life working alongside soldiers in a war zone, you're hardly likely to want to spend your life sitting on a sofa, shovelling Gregg's pasties down your neck and claiming off the social. ///
Mmmmm, seems a different attitude from the one you show our brave soldiers after returning from a war zone.
You are quick to point out how they are jamming up the prison population, only taking on soldiering because they have failed academically, and not far short of also accusing them of "sitting on a sofa, shovelling Gregg's pasties down their necks and claiming off the social.
jake-the-peg
/// From his deleted post yesterday I'm sure he's equally concerned with the risk to the country's 'racial purity' (I think that was the term used) ///
I am unaware that any post of mine was deleted yesterday, especially where any mention of 'racial purity' was used, so I would not only be obliged if you could provide the proof, and also refrain from stating a objectionable term when one is 'NOT SURE' of the term used.
/// From his deleted post yesterday I'm sure he's equally concerned with the risk to the country's 'racial purity' (I think that was the term used) ///
I am unaware that any post of mine was deleted yesterday, especially where any mention of 'racial purity' was used, so I would not only be obliged if you could provide the proof, and also refrain from stating a objectionable term when one is 'NOT SURE' of the term used.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
News22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.