- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
The figures - gathered by a network of Afghan veterans - reveal the scale of what one former UK general calls a “betrayal” and a “disgrace”.
The soldiers fled to Pakistan, which now says it will expel Afghan refugees.
The UK says it has brought thousands of Afghans to safety.
Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers “is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent”.
“Neither are acceptable,” he said. “It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison.”
I don’t really see what this has to do with colonialism?
Pointing to any bad thing any country that used to do colonialism does and calling it colonialism seems silly to me.
In this case: the UK worked with and funded the training of these people. They fled to Pakistan after the US left Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to deport them and the UK is saying that despite working with and in some cases even joining UK ranks directly, that doesn’t entitle them to stay in the UK permanently.
I can certainly see why you’d call that shitty, but where does colonialism come into it? I swear some people just hear UK and their mind turns to 1800s red coats or something
I agree that the issue presented by the article is likely not related to colonialism. More so the disinterest in providing further security resources to the area.
A lot of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, has been affected by the colonial interests of the British Empire in the past. Albeit mostly in the mid to late 19th century and into the WW1 era.
I doubt I understand the nuances to make any claims that the prior issues are indirectly affecting the area currently, but I believe it is worth to note the relation as why it could be brought up in comments.
Country invades other country, installs friendly government, invader loses interest and local government collapses under insurgency. Invader leaves local allies hanging after they were done using them. If that’s not a classic colonialist moment then I don’t know what is.
Let me get this straight… you think Afghanistan was a UK colony?
No, arguably worse. Because if it was a colony the UK would have at least governed and invested in the country. Instead they came in, wrecked shit for a couple decades and left.
Right, so colonialism is when a country doesn’t give residency or citizenship to people that fought alongside British forces, officially or unofficially.
You’re shoehorning a completely unrelated topic into this.
Did you read the comment you replied to? I literally said it wasn’t colonialism in that comment.
Ok then, so you never really had a point.
My point is that it’s worse than colonialism. Bruh. Holy shit lol.
Lmao
Not giving foreign soldiers citizenship is worse than colonialism. Christ.
Someone’s never read a history book.
deleted by creator
That’s a vassal state, not a colony. Under colonial rule, there is no ‘real’ government and there are strong economic ties between colonizer and colonized.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What did you think the (so-called) “War On Terror” was really about?