The dirty bastards!

[InsaneApache]

How :daisy: dare they. They deserve everything they get.

I thought we couldn't sink much lower, this disgusts me.


Britain was accused yesterday of abandoning 91 Iraqi interpreters and their families to face persecution and possible death when British forces withdraw.

The Times has learnt that the Government has ignored personal appeals from senior Army officers in Basra to relax asylum regulations and make special arrangements for Iraqis whose loyal services have put their lives at risk.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2211281.ece

:shame: :shame: :shame: :shame: :embarassed: :embarassed:

[Husar]

Disgusting indeed, seems like they just use and then abandon them.:thumbsdown:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to take care of your responsibilities, Britain.

:no:

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I read that Denmark took in 200 of their Iraqi interpreters etc, plus their families.

Even if Britain absolutely, really, doesn't want Iraqi refugees in, then at least be creative about it. What would Jordan's price be to take them in? Just pay some country fifty thousand quid per family, fly them over there, and hand your Iraqi helpers some dough to get them started in their new home. Everybody happy. Gah.

[KafirChobee]

No doubt this will change. The Brits tend to have consciences, and long memories.
While we in America do not - once it's over it's over. We wash our hands of any further responsability and turn away so we don't get bothered by scenes of retaliation against those that allied themselves to us - ref. Vietnam. Todate, America has turned its back on thousands of Iraqis that have already risked their lives to aid us. Bush has said we'ld get back to them - when we leave ... er, actually meaning it's just another thing he'll leave for the next Prez to clean-up. Mean while, most have fled Iraq - or gone into hiding. We did allow a few (very few, and with $$$$) to immigrate, some even to America.

[Lemur]

Way to take care of your responsibilities, Britain.
The Brits are actually better behaved on this front than the U.S.A. Example. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer)

Another example. (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070122&s=editorial012207)


The reasons for this are as convoluted as they are senseless. There is the U.N. referral system, designed to identify refugees in need but broken beyond repair. There are America's post-September 11 immigration restrictions, which treat endangered Iraqi Christians as if they were havoc-bent Islamist radicals. There is the indefensible policy of refusing to grant visas from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, forcing Iraqis in search of asylum to make perilous and expensive journeys to the embassy in Jordan instead. And, above all, there is the transparent fiction that Iraqis, now liberated, no longer endure systematic persecution: No Saddam, no problem. This conceit may comfort the sensibilities of the Bush administration, but the death toll in Baghdad points to a different truth.

For years, the excuse that American officials have used to reject more liberal immigration laws is that terrorists will exploit them. But are we really incapable of distinguishing a translator who has risked his life--and the safety and well-being of his family--to serve U.S. forces from an insurgent? If so, we're in even more trouble than we think.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Brits are actually better behaved on this front than the U.S.A.

Better behaved? At least we're not pulling out yet, though the second example you show is bad (I didn't want to read the 16 pages of the first example).

CR

[Tribesman]

Better behaved? At least we're not pulling out yet,
OK then , how many did America leave behind in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos ?
Way to take care of your responsibilities eh:oops:

[Lemur]

OK then , how many did America leave behind in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos ?
Way to take care of your responsibilities eh
Hmm, I know for a fact that we resettled a huge number of Hmong tribesmen from Laos. Not so sure about Vietnam, or what the numbers are.

The point, Tribesy, isn't that the U.S. is irresponsible and evil, rather that we've had our rough patches too, and we shouldn't be scolding the Brits.

[Crazed Rabbit]

OK then , how many did America leave behind in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos ?
Way to take care of your responsibilities eh:oops:

Oh, you mean when the peaceniks demanded we leave immediately?


The point, Tribesy, isn't that the U.S. is irresponsible and evil, rather that we've had our rough patches too, and we shouldn't be scolding the Brits.

Bah! There's plenty of threads bashin' the USA - we can't let Britain get left out!

And besides, scolding one doesn't mean you can't scold the other.

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

So, I take it all here agree that locals who've helped us (whoever 'us' is) should get preferential treatment through our immigration systems?

[Lemur]

If someone puts their life on the line to help out our troops and our mission, damn straight they deserve special treatment.

[Shaka_Khan]

People will be more reluctant to be allied with us if this keeps up.

[Spetulhu]

If someone puts their life on the line to help out our troops and our mission, damn straight they deserve special treatment.

It's a sound way of thinking even if you're an evil emperor. Who is going to help voluntarily next time if you don't look out for your people now?

[Tribesman]

The point, Tribesy, isn't that the U.S. is irresponsible and evil, rather that we've had our rough patches too, and we shouldn't be scolding the Brits.
Never said it was evil , just noted that Rabbit was throwing stones from inside a glass house :yes:


Hmm, I know for a fact that we resettled a huge number of Hmong tribesmen from Laos. Not so sure about Vietnam, or what the numbers are.

Hmmmm...how many Hmong over how many years and how much effort was made to stop them coming or to send them back to Laos ?
But hey they is terrorists now ain't they , some of them want to change the regime back in their old home ~;)


Oh, you mean when the peaceniks demanded we leave immediately?
:dizzy2:
Oh you mean the chain of events when the government started a war with a lie , kept it going with more lies , started another few secret illegal wars , tried numerous "surges" , all despite knowing from the start that they couldn't win , and eventually it finally reached its natural conclusion ......yep that was the peaceniks rabbit...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: or was it the freemasons and jews~:doh:

[English assassin]

:thumbsdown:

This is another one of those decisions where the right thing to do is so obvious, and comes at such a trivial cost (I hardly think 91 iraqis and their families will put much more of a strain on the country than the 700,000 Poles who have arived in the last year or two) that you wonder what kind of morons we employ as civil servants and politicians.

Although I have little doubt that the decisioon will be reversed.

[Tribesman]

So, I take it all here agree that locals who've helped us (whoever 'us' is) should get preferential treatment through our immigration systems?

Nope .

[Andres]

Nope .

Just out of curiosity: why not?

[Tribesman]

Just out of curiosity: why not?
oh lots of reasons , lots and lots of reasons really .
I can think of a recent example on this forum where it was basicly only Panzer saying that someone who had helped with the "mission" should be given special treatment .
But to respond to your question with a question . If you choose to back the losing side why does it make you deserving of special treatment ?

[Duke of Gloucester]

I don't think anyone is arguing a moral superiority for these people, Tribes. The argument is that if someone puts themselves in danger by helping you, especially when the help is solicited, then you have a moral responsibility to act to keep them safe. Neither is anyone (on this thread) saying that there aren't other people who deserve help. Seems to me that it is difficult to disagree with this but if you relish the challenge go ahead.

[Samurai Waki]

I know for a fact that we evacuated over 20,000 Vietnamese from Saigon, because the vast majority settled in the Bitterroot Mountains area of Montana between Hamilton and Missoula. And by and large most of the families (especially the older generations) have stuck around, the younger going elsewhere to make their fortunes. Where I'm living now, not five miles down the road a pretty massive enclave of Hmong (something like 15,000 of them) live there and they were transported from what I can ascertain not that long ago. So someone in office at one point in time bit the bullet of responsibility. Now it is simply impossible to remove an entire culture and replant them somewhere else. However, having that said, most of these people were simply civilians, not vital in our role during war or peace time, the Iraqi interpretors OTOH are or were, so it would be rather irresponsible to wash our hands of them...

[Andres]

oh lots of reasons , lots and lots of reasons really .
I can think of a recent example on this forum where it was basicly only Panzer saying that someone who had helped with the "mission" should be given special treatment .
But to respond to your question with a question . If you choose to back the losing side why does it make you deserving of special treatment ?

I'm leaning to the 'special treatment'-side. If someone puts his life at risk for your country and afterwards comes in danger because he helped your country, shouldn't your country return the favour by helping that person? I feel the answer is yes.

I was just wondering why you think that the particular country should not help that particular person :bow:

[Tribesman]

I'm leaning to the 'special treatment'-side. If someone puts his life at risk for your country and afterwards comes in danger because he helped your country, shouldn't your country return the favour by helping that person? I feel the answer is yes.

I was just wondering why you think that the particular country should not help that particular person
Should the US have given refuge to Saddam ? he helped them with their mission against Iran didn't he , did he deserve special treatment ? Perhaps a luxury prison suite like certain Central American dictators get .
Hmmm.....Central America , terrorists and death squads ..special treatment yes or no ?
SE Asia ....irregular guerilas in an undeclared illegal war... special treatment ?

Ah but this is interpreters isn't it , interpreters are good :yes: after all you cannot do much of an interrogation without them ...what about the interrogators then ? special treatment yes or no ?
There can be no special treatment just because "they helped you" it has to be on a case by case basis as with all immigration issues .

Now for some fun ...there were some numbers posted the other day about people helping with the mission , 349,000 apparently.:yes: will they be at risk once the coilition leaves ?
Can they get special treatment ?
Can their families ?
OK forget about the ISF......
What about Abdul the reliable floor sweeper at the mess hall ?
He works for the coilition , he will be at risk .
Can he come too ? he is special:inquisitive:

[Papewaio]

I see what you are saying, its a matter of numbers. If 10% of the population helped you out (including the families) then can you be expected to take that 10% as immigrants?

[InsaneApache]

You can't protect everyone. The 'floorsweeper' was hardly going to go on missions with the patrols. We should protect those that did.

Nice arguement Tribes and a clever twist to the post, in this case, irrelevent.

[Tribesman]

I see what you are saying, its a matter of numbers.
Its more than just a matter of numbers Pape , what makes someone special just because they work for the occupying forces ?
They chose the job , they knew the risk , no one forced them into it .


Nice arguement Tribes and a clever twist to the post, in this case, irrelevent.

Ah but relevant to the subject Apache .
Can you think of a conflict closer to home where sweeping the floor at an army base put you at serious risk ?
Anyway don't diminish the role of the humble floorsweeper , its an essential job that someone has to do :laugh4:


Look at it this way...for a government a serviceman in reality is a disposable asset , is not a foriegn serviceman/contractor equally or more disposable .

[Papewaio]

Reciprocity and repeatability.

If you don't look after those who looked after you then you will find it very hard to get help in the future.

And a serviceman may be used for a Gambit, but too many of those and you will find it hard to recruit any. That is why there are big parades, statues and shiny bits of metal pinned to their chests... its all there to get more recruits.

[Fragony]

Way to go Brittain, I am sure they will be lining up en masse when you need them. Quid pro quo.

[Tribesman]

Reciprocity and repeatability. If you don't look after those who looked after you then you will find it very hard to get help in the future.


Ah so people should work for the occupiers so they can emigrate :idea2:



And a serviceman may be used for a Gambit, but too many of those and you will find it hard to recruit any.
Conscription :yes:


That is why there are big parades, statues and shiny bits of metal pinned to their chests... its all there to get more recruits.

Yeah well some people will be gullible enough to buy that window dressing , but for me a statue of some dead bloke or a cripple with a shiney bit of metal on a ribbon doesn't really give much encouragement does it .
The US is finding that bigger and bigger chunks of cash for those that sign up work quite well though .

[Del Arroyo]

Nobody is abandoning anybody here. If and when the British and/or the Americans pull out, they will bring everybody with them who needs to come. But right now, the British and Americans are still there. The only story here is a few people whining because they want to "get theirs" the firstest, and then try to get the mostest. Well, right now they are still needed as interpreters.

Not to say that the US or Britain has always been right, or that any further mistakes they might make would not be very dishonorable.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Nobody is abandoning anybody here. If and when the British and/or the Americans pull out, they will bring everybody with them who needs to come. But right now, the British and Americans are still there. The only story here is a few people whining because they want to "get theirs" the firstest, and then try to get the mostest. Well, right now they are still needed as interpreters.

Not to say that the US or Britain has always been right, or that any further mistakes they might make would not be very dishonorable.

You could be right; time will tell. However what the British are doing is pulling out of various areas of Iraq. Is it acceptable to wait until they finally leave before they bring out those in danger or should they bring people out when their city is evacuated?

[Tribesman]

Nobody is abandoning anybody here. If and when the British and/or the Americans pull out, they will bring everybody with them who needs to come.
History would suggest otherwise .


The only story here is a few people whining because they want to "get theirs" the firstest, and then try to get the mostest. Well, right now they are still needed as interpreters.

Are they ?
I thought Britain had withdrawn to the airport and handed over to the Badr brigades police and the crazy morality enforcement squads .
I thought their only real role now (apart from giving Bush a fig leaf ally on the ground)was to keep the road to Kuwait open for US convoys .
So how many interpreters do they need ?


Is it acceptable to wait until they finally leave before they bring out those in danger or should they bring people out when their city is evacuated?
The thing is that a premature evacuation of some Iraqi workers would cause panic , what must be done is leave it to the last minute , have a big scramble for the final helicopter , leaving most of them behind .
Then those that survive can get let in after perhaps a decade or so in a refugee camp if they can escape themselves or once they are released from detention and you do a deal with whichever faction is then in power .
Perhaps for good measure throw in a couple of attempts to forcibly repatriate the refugees in the mean time .

But of course we could always be blindly optimistic , ignore reality and say "hey maybe this time will be different and the usual cycle of events won't happen"