Please Mr Cameron, help me escape death.

  Chronos the 2nd 09:43 06 May 2013

The title of this thread was taken from yesterdays Sunday Times from an article concerning Afghan interpreters and the refusal by the UK government not to allow them to settle in Britain.

These people face death yet David Cameron wants the Afghan interpreters to be given money and be encouraged to stay and help build the country.

It never ceases to amaze me the contempt our politicians seem to afford those that have risked their not only their own lives but also the lives of their family for this country to be then treated so shabbily. As far as those 'benevolent' people the Taliban are concerned the interpreters are traitors and deserved to be killed and will be targeted.

In 2011 William Hague, the foreign secretary said interpreters " who have put their life on the line for the United Kingdom will not be abandoned." Yet recently when asked to comment the Foreign office had nothing to say on the matter.

This is not a dig at the Tories as Labour were equally disgusting when it came to the treatment of the Ghurkhas.

Yet if you are a Russian billionaire who became super rich by dubious means then you are welcomed with open arms by our leaders.

  carver 10:09 06 May 2013

They are already marked men and the minute these people are abandoned then that is when they and most likely their family's will be tried and killed as traitors.

Will not matter how much money they have, also you have to remember a politicians memory in certain circumstances resembles a fishes memory.

  fourm member 10:43 06 May 2013

spider9's second point is the central one.

The UK government cannot say the intervention has failed and Afghanistan is not a safe place to live.

What it can do, is what Cameron has said it will do, and look at each case on its merits.

This needs to be done out of the spotlight so that all those at risk can be admitted based on a case by case determination rather than telling every Afghan that their country is no better off than it was in 2001.

(I'm not for a moment saying it is any better than it was. I'm just saying that the government shouldn't parade the current state of Afghanistan in front of the world.)

  Chronos the 2nd 11:28 06 May 2013

What it can do, is what Cameron has said it will do, and look at each case on its merits.

I am sorry I do not understand that statement, the Afghan interpreters are considered traitors by the Taliban and will hunted and killed. So on what criteria can anyone who has done that job in Afghanistan be judged on anything other than that they are in mortal danger when we turn the country back over to the Taliban, oops my mistake, the perfectly democratic government of Hamid Karzai whose corrupt practices have had a blind eye turn to them but I suspect the Taliban will not be quite so accommodating.

  fourm member 13:35 06 May 2013

There is no reason to suppose that looking at each case will result in any rejections.

It is the difference between saying 'Afghanistan is not safe' and 'Afghanistan is not safe for you'.

Of course, you have to ask why just the interpreters? I assume the British forces had their accommodation cleaned and I would expect that to be done by locally employed cleaners. And I doubt if we send professional soldiers to Helmand to wash up the dirty dishes after dinner.

If you say 'Afghanistan is not safe' then who do you protect?

  john bunyan 15:27 06 May 2013

Of course Afghanistan is not safe for such folk, and we should be prepared to let them come here, at the same time cracking down on non EU migrants (many from Afghanistan as can be seen at Calais trying to hide in UK bound lorries) to offset the numbers. You only have to look at the Pakistan elections, where the Taliban openly oppose democracy and are bombing rallies, to see their extreme anti Western views. I have had many conversations with recently serving SF people, some of whom have done 7 tours there. They say that Afghanistan is a tribal society, the government has many corrupt people in it, and when we leave the tribal issues will increase; it is touch and go whether it will be safe in the foreseeable future.

  Flak999 15:45 06 May 2013

I think this adventure in Afghanistan will be proved to be a total failure, perhaps an even bigger failure than Iraq. I give it six months from the time ISAF leaves before the whole rotten edifice of Hamid Karzai's government comes crashing down. We could probably have achieved our limited goals of keeping the Taliban in check using drone strikes, without having to waste our soldiers precious lives.

As it now stands we will do well to get out of there with ourselves and our equipment intact, it will probably have to be a fighting retreat to free ourselves from that stinking hell hole.

If the Government were an honest and honourable one (which it's not) they would give the same assurances to the Afghan interpreters that they gave to the Iraqi ones. Unfortunately it looks as if the Afghan interpreters picked the wrong side and are now going to pay the ultimate price for their mistake.

  spuds 11:01 07 May 2013
  flycatcher1 14:08 07 May 2013

Like many others on this forum I served this country for many years. Loyalty was instilled in us and, on many occasions, I was protected by loyalty and then, in my time I helped others. As time passed I found that the up and down loyalty ethic was being diminished it was expected up but not always happen down.

Finally an Air Commodore, later an Air Chief Marshal, told us that we had better change our ways because the RAF was going to be our employer and we would just be employees. We disagreed at the time but he was proved right and the change took place.

It is an absolute disgrace that those who give loyalty do not receive our loyalty in return. The politicians in charge should be ashamed.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

Illustrator Charles Williams on how to create magazines and book covers

iMac Pro review

Les meilleures prises CPL (2018)