Afghan interpreters petition delivered to Cameron
 

Absolutely disgraceful...these people have stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops and deserve better treatment than to be left stranded and targets for the Taliban.

It was done for the Gurkha's after all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23684980

How many decades did it take for the Gurkhas to get the right to reside?

Same with the Afghans helping the Germans. Around 5000 translators and scouts cooperated with the Bundeswehr, it was written in a paper some weeks ago. I'm all for letting them and their close families (not the whole village clan) into Germany, if - what can be assumed in most cases, since they worked with the Germans - they are not holding fundamentalist views (which would be an unpardonable exclusion criterion, of course). But only the actual workers, brothers and sisters of the workers since they are at high risk also and are not older than a to-be-defined criterion age (they should be young enough to be able to integrate and adapt to life in Germany), the workers' wifes for obvious reasons, their children. Not more. Not the old parents, not aunts, uncles, siblings' marriage partners and their children - they have to make a tough decision. I know, and I'm sorry, but one has to define a criterion and a red line, and I want that criterion defined tight. So it is - for example - the translator, his wife, his kids, his brothers and sisters of same generation, period.

In the end, I am disagreeing with those saying that we owe this to them. We do not owe this to them, for our people went to their cursed country and tried to help THEM, and took risks for THEM - not th eother way around; and what these translators did was no service to Germany, but a service to their own country in an attempt to improve its' situation. I indeed see it as generosity from our side if nevertheless we welcome the active staff in Germany now: generosity, not a moral obligation. But I do not see why our social system should pay for their whole village clan, so to speak. And let'S be realistic: thes epeople coming to germany (if they are allowed in), will be social netto receivers, not netto payers. That's why I refuse their elders and parents, cousins and uncles and aunts and so many more.

I refuse your comparison with the Gurkhas, Jim. The Gurkhas fought in the name and for the British crown. You see my point.

These translators weren't forced to participate Sky....like the Gurkhas before them, they made a choice.

Yes, they volunteered. However, the Gurkhas made a choice to fight for Britain, and to serve for Britain - that si why Britain owed to them. The interpreters made a choice to serve for Afghanistan's future. The Germans going there served Afghanistan'S future, or tried so. The interpreters did not decide for serving Germany. That is the difference between them and the Gurkhas.

You really cannot see that difference?

Anyhow, as I said, let's be generous and let them in if they are willing to integrate in Germany, okay. But them, and their immediate close family only. And I stick to it: it is no moral obligation of Germany to let them in, but a generous gesture. They did not serve Germany, but themselves, and Afghanistan. They are not like the Gurkhas.

No problem...we agree to disagree but we are the same on one point...let them come to our respective countries.

It might only be academic in this case, but still - it's just that I cannot understand you. I fail to see the parallel you draw between the Gurkhas and the Afghans there.

If an African guy would lend a hand to a British development worker in Africa, this hardly earns him the right for asylum in Britain - Britain came to the help or aid of that African country, so what claim has that country or guy to make against Britain for owing it/him something? But if a guy from Puerto Rico serves in the US armed forces for some time, that service is not for Puerto Rico but the US, and it - deservedly - earns him citizenship after some time. Obviously, both cases do not compare! The first example is about serving that African country, or one'S own interest to have a regular income. The second is about serving America. Two totally different motivations and view on things! Voluntariness is not a thing of interest in this, it has no relevance for this whole question. I am quite certain that many of those Afghan interpreters did not even sign in due to wanting to serve Afghanistan's future, but because of the money the get payed for their job. That is okay, no moral objection. It's just that this also is no argument to imply that Britain/Germany have the obligation to accept them in Europe now.

Yes, we agree to let them (and their very closest relatives only) in. It just is an intellectual "quarrel" I have with you over your strange comparison to the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas came to the explicit and dedicated service for Britain. The interpreters came to the service for Afghanistan's future (if they were idealists) or their own interest to have a job and have an income. They did not come to the service for Germany or Britain, quite the other way around - Germany and Britain came to the service of Afghanistan (or so they argue).

I used Gurkha as an example because that was the first comparator that sprung to mind.

It would be the same for any national that helped our troops on the front line and as a consequence of our troops pulling out found themselves and their family in clear and present danger.

We are not talking of tens of thousands here in fact the number would probably be miniscule when considering the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

One other consideration should be the fact that these people usually have skills in addition to their bilingual capability.

This ^

Still, the motivation is totally different. It is a difference whether you help foreign troops to help your country and you take risks over that, or you help foreign troops and take risks for their country. I talked, by chance, with two friends yesterday. They too see the difference. I fail to see why one c/would miss it.

But anyhow, nix für ungut. ;)

So the next conflict that the Brits are involved in, will they be "shocked" when the local populace does not collaborate with them? :nope:

Not a very good message to send to the world.

"help us fight our enemies and when we are done, you are on your own"

"Help us fight YOUR enemies." I corrected that for you.

The interpreters did not serve the crown or Germany's interest. The Brits and Germans where there to fight for Afghanistan's interests in the past years. It is only to be expected that if the locals see it like that as well, they give help and assistance. It is in their own intrest to help defending and recreating their country.

Thisa does in no way compare to foreigners fighting in the US army not for their home nations intewrest, but America'S and then gain citizenship, nor does it compare to the Gurkhas - who joined British forces to serve the British crown.

It is beyond me (and my friends) why you guys completely fail to see that difference.

Whether I assist you on behalf of your cause or on behalf of my own interest - how much more different can two motivations be, eh?

And the bad example set, Platapus, is not over the issue of asylum yes or no, but by the whole idiotic way Afghanistan war was handled for ten years now. America and Europe were too civilised as if they ever had a chance to really win this and to reward all their stupid claims and promises made for a bright and shiny future of Afghanistan.

Isn't that what happened to your translators in Vietnam?
Did many translators get shipped out of Iraq when your government pulled the troops out when they couldn't get Iran to give a decent SOFA deal?

It does seem like its par for the course to abandon the locals you recruit when the operation goes tits up.

What you are saying is true but...by their actions and service, how many German and British soldiers and civilians were spared death or injury? What's that worth?

Just a thought.

USA did the same thing to the doctor who helped us bag Bin Laden.

Welcome to the club!

No wonder they saw peoples heads off and put it on liveleak.

edit: this certainly breeds alot of discontent, and gives no reason for them to trust anyone.

Risks taken by the Allied and Afghans were risks taken on behalf of Afghanistans future. Maybe one could argue that it is different with the Americans who went. into Afghanistan for their own interest indeed (nine eleven). But Britain, Germany and other Europeans were not part of that start and the Americans even deliberately refused NATO assistance as long as they thought it would ne a walk in the woods only. When Nato finally was asked to join, Europeans engaged explicitly on behalf of Afghanistan's national interest, and the interest of its people. At least that is what is claimed until today.

The point remains Skybird. Would you see these people who have served our troops abandoned? Murdered along with their wives and children when we pull out?

Wasting your time...absolutely no deviation..."I'm alright Jack".

The history of nations using indigenous people in other lands to advance their militray, political, imperialistic, capitalistic, religious, or any other motives and then abondoning them to their fates or reneging on the pledges to those who aided them is long and shameful. Here, in Los Angeles, there is a large Filipino community, some of whom served in WW2 as interpreters, armed combatant alogside the US force or who provide much need intel and covert services that greatly aided the war effort in the Pacific, saving many, many American and Allied lives in the process. They were made promises of full US citizenship and veteran's benfits as recognition of their valiant service in WW2 and for the service of many Filipinos in the US military in the years since 1895 when the US acquired control over the nation after the Spanish American War. A bill meant to enforce these promises was introduced in 1993 and every year since then; the bills have never made out of subcommittees in those 20 years that have pased. The Filipino veterans have really been more than patient and are now dying off in greater numbers, as are so many of our WW2 vets. The main obstacle to the passage of any bill has been from the Far Right, who are well known for beating the drums of war and intervention, but seem to fade away when it comes time to pay the bill. And, God forbid, that any of there progeny or others of their class should serve or spill blood in furtherence of the Right causes; especially when there are so many, like the Filipinos, who can be used up and then tossed aside...

The Filipinos are not alone, there quite a few others taken in by the US military and civilian leadership, in the past and the present. As recently as Vietnam: just look up the situation of the Hmong in Vietnam and Laos after the war and how, again, the US rather failed to live up to its obligations and promises regarding the Hmong and left them to the predations of the same enemy they helped us fight against....

Many, many nations have treated the indigenous people of other lands as 'diposaable' or 'forgettable', but it serves the US and other nations like the UK, ill to not take real steps to address the situation and do what is right. As someone earlier noted, what happens the next time we are faced with a conflict in another area of the world and really need the assistance and cooperation of the people in that country? Will they look at our "resume" and say "Seems like a really bad risk here..."


<O>

Jim and me alreay agreed to get them out. I just limited it to the very closest family members only : wives, children, and I set conditions (willingness to fully integrate, no migration of net receivers to our social system). The issue were we differ is whether to see this asylum given is a moral obligation, or a gesture of generosity. You guys seem to agree it is a right they won by their working contract. I say it is no obligation of ours, but our good will only. My argument is that the decisive difference is the motivation aiming at serving Afghan interest, or Germany's interest. And the whole mission was run by Britain and Germny on behalf of Afghanistan's interest. Euope's self interest would have been to never go into Afghanistan in the first.

As I said, the arguments can be seen different for the American motivation to go into Afghanistan.