This is a real tricky issue.
On balance I'd be more comfortable to say yes than no.
I feel we have a moral obligation to at least give these people a choice on their future.
mixed feelings
I've read somewhat a same story like this. But it concerns the military dogs of US Armed Forces. President Obama signed a law that would allow the military dogs to be brought back to US and all the relocation, retirement and vet care would be shouldered by the government (I think). They would now be treated as members of the armed forces instead of just an equipment.
http://awionline.org/content/canine-members-armed-forces-act
-=rayna.keith=-
...When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible...
no !
I agree with Gen Sir Mike Jackson. I think it would not reflect well on us to desert people who stood side by side with our troops.
They were paid to do a job.
Do we have to fill our country up with people from warring tribes straight out of the middle ages, just because we feel we OWE them something and somehow they are DIFFERENT to the rest ?
I think not....and certainly when probably the majority of voters of this nation didn't want us to be there in the first place.
We started all this nonsense off when we let 40,000 Ugandan Asians in back in the 60s, instead of just cancelling their passports.
It's time we stopped trying to save the rest of the world. Full stop.
Nobody in the rest of the world gives a damn about our high moral values, but we're certainly keeping them amused with our stupidity.
Yes.
How would the British armed forces be able to do their jobs without these interpreters.
If in the future the UK follows its master the USA into war again how are they going to persuade interpreters to work for them?
They are now going to be given visas allowing them to come here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22620207
Yes, heard it on the news this morning.
That's why I had to put the radio off and got up an hour early.
The thing with the rules about asylum is that they were put in place to protect people who would possibly be killed back home, this has been abused by tens of thousands of people over the decades and is a failure of all governments.
The interpreters on the other hand took the job knowing a few risks were involved, however a number of them, including family members have been executed for helping the British army, and most are now living in hiding. Many of our troops lives have been saved by these people and the least we can do is protect them and their families. It is not much different than the Ghurkha's putting their lives on the line to help our troops, so why should it be different for interpreters?
Keith - Administrator
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
