Airbnb offers free accommodation for 20k Afghan refugees

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #50

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an idea: If you want to convert a dwelling to short stay accommodation you have to also make it available for x days per year for crisis accommodation.

This is how the civil reserve air fleet works. If an airline wants to receive military contracts it has to make a portion of it’s fleet available for emergency use. I’m personally not a big fan of these sorts of neoliberal public private partnerships. But at least with conventional thinking it’s not that bad of an idea. Not sure why you’re getting all these downvotes.

Post by hhsbz » Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 7:04 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #60

slumdev wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It did until a few days ago.

At least legally, the US had no “rights” over Afghanistan. Afghanistan was not a colony, territory or state of the US. The government was “free” to kick out the US whenever they wanted.

Post by aixi » Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

tchvil wrote: post #122

remarkEon wrote: post #72

This is one of those things where lots of people, though judging from the thread maybe not as many as I'd expected here, will applaud. A wealthy, successful, American company is "stepping up" in a humanitarian crisis caused by the United States' misguided (to put it mildly) aspirations for a country that ultimately had little interest in western-style governance. And so it goes, these Afghan refugees will enter into…

All emigrants live that, isn't it? All sub saharien africans cleaning dishes in our European restaurants live that shock. My grand pa after his first day as a miner in Belgium, wanted to run back under the sun of his Croatian village. But stayed for his friends he met in the hole. You land in a totally different environment, and have to adapt, and most do as they can.

Post by distances » Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 7:35 AM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #124

rank0 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the way I see it, there no way we can tolerate the Taliban facilitating attacks on US soil. So after the initial invasion and defeat of Taliban forces, what is the correct move? Occupation didn’t work, but leaving after overthrowing the theocracy just allows the theocracy to reform. It seems to me that a more thorough elimination of the remaining Taliban is the only other option here. I am legitimately asking what…

I had one idea. Invest $60-80 billion dollars a year in infrastructure and humanitarian projects inside Afghanistan from 2002-2020. That's about triple their total GDP and similar to the cost of war. That investment gradually leads to deradicalization, both because people become better educated and happier, but also because they start to see the US as a legitimate friend.

Post by silurian » Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 8:44 AM UTC

sterlind wrote: post #108

mayneack wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent comment is describing the humanitarian crisis going this far back, but the US is at least partially responsible for the pre-9/11 Taliban going back to the support of the Afghan mujahideen in the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_mujahideen#Relationship... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Taliban#Foreign_inf...

I tried to untangle all this stuff, but it looked really complicated. Apparently the US encouraged radical Islam as a way of opposing Soviet occupation - resisting state-sponsored atheism and culture and all. But there were a bunch of mujahideen groups, spanning multiple ethnic groups and ideologies. After the occupation ended, a bunch of the groups signed onto the Peshawar Accord to create a government, but a few of…