British Helo Pilots...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Now Washington has launched a war against its former allies based on a strategic calculation that the Taliban can no longer be relied upon to provide a stable, U.S.-friendly government that can serve its strategic interests.

In fairness, that "strategic calculation" was essentially made for the US when the group the Taliban was allied to and providing safe have to declared war and attacked, and the Taliban subsequently refused to disassociate itself from them.

[Stalins Organ]

They offered to put hem on trial......

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes they did... under Sharia law. bin Laden himself supported the idea, which suggests he was confident of the outcome.

[Stalins Organ]

And the US declined, which suggests it wasn't so sure...what was the evidence again?

IIRC at the time there wasn't actually all that much - it was before he'd come out & said he did it wasn't it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not all that much, eh? He was already wanted prior to 9/11 for the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi and the attack on the USS Cole.

And yeah, I don't think the US was so sure that he would be convicted under Sharia law. Do you blame them?

I'm frankly having a difficult time taking you position seriously. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what your position is, exactly, though the fact that the report you linked to earlier was from the "International Socialist Review" is probably a good hint.

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, it wasn't just the United States demanding he be handed over. Even before 9/11 the Taliban was legally required to do so under UN Resolution 1267, which was passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in October of 1999.

1. Insists that the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its previous resolutions and in particular cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice.

[Stalins Organ]

Ah yeah - blame it on the socialists.

In that case...the US & Israel regularly ignore UN resolutions, so why get down on the Taliban for doing it too?

my point is that this is all BS - spurious justifications for reworking the world in the Neo-Con vision of peace, liberty and freedom for all.

Yeah right!

Most of the world is sick of the claims of the US that they have ben hard done by - right after 9/11 there was a lot of sympathy - heck even Iran offerd to come onside, to be rebuffed by the now infamous quote "We dont' talk to evil".

Sharia law requires evidence - if the US didnt' think it could get a conviction then presumably it lacked the evidence to stand up in court - the link you give above says that "Governments have concluded" Osama is guilty, etc...and they KNEW this by 14 November 2001 2 months after the attack already..... so not actually a trial, and if the evidence is good enough to go to trial then why not do so?

The Taliban insisted they wanted to see the evidence - AFAIK the US never provided it to them. They also said that they wanted him tried in an Moslem country - there are plenty of those outside Afghanistan - but the idea was never broached - AFAIK no negotiations weer entered into - the effort was never made to take them up on the offer - even to call their bluff if you will.

Why didn't the US say OK - we'll send over some American Sharia scholars, or get some Saudi ones, or try him in Saudi, or Kuwait or Egypt?

Is this a rant? Too damned right it is - against the stupidity of the Bush administration, those who still refuse to see that it did wrong, and, worse, think it actually did something right and needs to be replicated in some shape or form. As far as I'm concerned Bush was a global disaster!

and it keeps going on - it'll take a lot more than 1 or 2 presidential terms to recover the US's reputation for the whole sordid Iraq/Afghanistan saga, let alone the financial collapse.....and yet people are already blaming Obama for not fixing it all up after 2 years?

God save us from the ficklenss, stupidity and arrogance of the US public! To be fair no other public is any better....but then no other public has such an effect on the rest of the world so we dont' need saving from them!

and that will probably ensure the end of this thread 'cos I'm pretty sure I've strayed into forbidden political grounds.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So it comes down to basic anti-Americanism. I appreciate your honesty.

Personally, I opposed the invasion of Iraq but strongly supported going into Afghanistan. I don't see them as comparable. There was broad international support for going into Afghanistan. There is a NATO command in Afghanistan, and there are some countries -- such as Canada and France -- that refused to support the invasion of Iraq but have troops fighting in Afghanistan. The fact that you seem to lump Afghanistan and Iraq together says much about how far out in left field your views are.

You state that Sharia law requires evidence. So does Western law. So why insist on Sharia, and why do you act as if one were as valid as the other? Sharia law is religious law, and there is no one single version of it any more than there is one single version of Islam. al-Qaeda justifies its attacks with Islam and depending on which teachings and interpretations are used, bin Laden may have been able to admit his part in the attacks -- as he has subsequently done -- but been found innocent on grounds that it was justifiable killing of infidels. Do you really consider Sharia law a valid means of judging bin Laden, or is it just that your anti-Americanism is so strong that anything the US wants you must oppose?

But even if we were to have gone the route you suggest -- and assuming the Taliban were even serious in their offer -- and further assuming bin Laden were actually convicted in this religious court you put so much faith in, the fact remains that bin Laden is just one guy. The head guy for sure, but he's replaceable. The terrorist training camps in Afghanistan would have remained open. The Taliban never offered to shut them down. Neither did they offer to hand over bin Laden's lieutenants, nor to expel the couple thousand trained al-Qaeda volunteers serving in the Taliban army (which they were also required to do under the UN Resolution). Any why would they? Those training camps were the source of the Taliban's best soldiers. So even with bin Laden in jail the central problem would have remained.

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.html

Written in 2002 for grown-ups.

It seems to me in both cases, Iraq and Afghanistan, that the pure military objectives could be identified and achieved. The what happens next was a complete failure in any terms you care to make.

Beating Afghanistan by bombers on targets was a doable, even after the US and UK forces had gone in - and should have been withdrawn. Find me a successful occupation of Afghanistan ever.

Invading Iraq was of course a complete bollocks. However the dismantling of an existing Westernised society and replacing it with religious factionalism takes incompetence of a staggering magnitude. Mafia, Italy might be something from the history books that might have given an intelligent man pause for thought.

I am left feeling more than a bit p1ssed at the quality of leadership and execution that has such huge ramifications for the world.

[Noltyboy]

Its rather sad that the Army Air Corp and the RAF [and the RN] have all been screwing around with helicoptor requirements. In my book helicoptors are close close support and land based ones should not be RAF.

All helicopters come under JHC (Joint Helicopter Command) which is controled by the LAND HQ (army).

It was LAND's desicion to cut funding for helicopters in around 2003. The generals dont understand how to utilize transport helicopters. They happily cut it for things they understand such as tanks, guns, Apache's and so forth.

"I hold that it is quite wrong for the soldier to want to exercise command over the striking forces. The handling of an Air Force is a life study, and therefore the air part must be kept under Air Force command."

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

The Brits only swear at football games. During combat their upper lips are too stiff for their mouths to form the words.

Are you kidding? The average brit squaddie swears all 24-f***ing seven!

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the ibfo Noltyboy. I was not aware that Montgomery had a great grasp of helicoptor warfare so I am slightly non-plussed.

Incidentally the site here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/JHC/

show what wordy shambles it is. I say shambles as apparently amongst its 15000 odd staff none speaks English sufficiently well to understand the difference between principal and principle.

It is also the first time the ugly manufactured word "jointery" has come to my attention. Admittedly it pre-dates JHC so they cannot be held liable for military jargon.

In July 2009. So JHC aso seems to good at deploying units? Actually I don't think helicoptors are the panacea they seem to get painted and the terrian is hostile let alone the environment. If you read the full article you will see how the US loses track of 147 helicoptors whilst we are engaged in dumbing down the latest Chinooks.

Anywhere but Afghanistan: Where British helicopters are stationed

Chinooks

Total 40 in fleet

10 in Helmand

29 in Hampshire

8 to be sent to Helmand

1 being used in an exercise

Pumas

43 in fleet

None in Afghanistan

Merlins

Total 70 in the fleet

None yet in Afghanistan

8 to be sent to Afghanistan

Sea Kings

Total 90 in the fleet

5 in Afghanistan

Apaches

Total 67 in the fleet

8 in Afghanistan

Lynx

Total 176 in the fleet

None in Afghanistan

Gazelles

Total 133 in the fleet

None in Afghanistan

Other

Total 47 in the fleet

None in Afghanista

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-scandal-of-uks-grounded-helicopter-fleet-1750094.html

Goatopedia is fun ...

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/wiki//index.php?title=Jointery

and then

Helicopter

From Goatopedia - The Royal Air Force Wiki

(Redirected from Support Helicopter Force)

Jump to: navigation, search

Scary things that don't really fly but beat the air in to submission.

The RAF operates several types of helicopter. The majority coming under the Joint Helicopter Command.

[edit]

[Noltyboy]

Thanks for the ibfo Noltyboy. I was not aware that Montgomery had a great grasp of helicoptor warfare so I am slightly non-plussed.

Incidentally the site here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/JHC/

show what wordy shambles it is. I say shambles as apparently amongst its 15000 odd staff none speaks English sufficiently well to understand the difference between principal and principle.

It is also the first time the ugly manufactured word "jointery" has come to my attention. Admittedly it pre-dates JHC so they cannot be held liable for military jargon.

In July 2009. So JHC aso seems to good at deploying units? Actually I don't think helicoptors are the panacea they seem to get painted and the terrian is hostile let alone the environment. If you read the full article you will see how the US loses track of 147 helicoptors whilst we are engaged in dumbing down the latest Chinooks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-scandal-of-uks-grounded-helicopter-fleet-1750094.html

Ok its a bit old but i still think it holds ground.

The Army have no idea about what it wants to do with Air Systems. Look at the way that the Army Air Corps and Royal Artilery are happily spending shed loads of money on UAV's with out talking to either each other or the RAF.

You have never heard of the term Joint? its the latest fashion dont ya know! The UK's forces sudden love of the colour Purple is a pain in the arrse. JFH, JHC and so on is only the begining.

That independant article is as usual rubbish. Full of holes and complete inacuracies. Of that list of helicopters "not in afghanistan" the 47 "others" are the training helicopters so hardly front line.

The Gazzelle is out of service now and in afghanistan would have had trouble carrying a payload of a Skinny Ghurka armed with a Browning 9mm.

Lynx has been out in afghanistan, and of that 179 includes the Navy's Lynx HMA.8's and the army's older Lynx AH.7.

Seaking is out in Afghanistan with the Royal Navy commando helicopter force. But that Number of 90 will includes the HAS6 ASW Helo, the ASaC7 AEW Helo as well as the MK4 commando carriers.

Pumas saw major action in Iraq and are old and need replacing.

Merlins numbers also include the Navy Merlin HM1's and HM2's ASW helicopters.

It doesnt mention the problems encountered by having to upgrade all helicopters going to Afghanistan with alot of protection against SAM's and other threats, most of it expensive and top secret.

No mention that you do need to keep a reserve of aircraft that are not using all there flying hours or being shot at.