Prestwick: Controllers' bomb flights unease
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US were Britains biggest intel provider in this conflict
Meanwhiles what about these flights being worked EXCLUSIVELY by Scot/London mil...then the moral judgements(valid) are removed from the civvy ATCO?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eastern wiseguy
Meanwhiles what about these flights being worked EXCLUSIVELY by Scot/London mil...then the moral judgements(valid) are removed from the civvy ATCO?
Besides which at some stage civil ATC has to get involved for a flight at a civil airfield/aerodrome/airport.BD
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bd...are you telling me that Scottish Mil can't handle the flight ...hand it off to London mil...who in turn hand it to ...I dunno..Mildenhall....(I accept that the ocean might be a problem ..but it could come over low level and the..........I know ..I'll get me coat....
)
)
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eastern wiseguy
bd...are you telling me that Scottish Mil can't handle the flight ...hand it off to London mil...who in turn hand it to ...I dunno..Mildenhall....
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Depends whether the chap files GAT or OAT. Scot Mil and LATCC Mil could certainly handle most of the flight. Lakenheath would provide the approach service for Mildenhall.
Anyway, if that makes some of you chaps sleep with ease, then so be it. Just remember that the democracy we live in elected the Government.
Anyway, if that makes some of you chaps sleep with ease, then so be it. Just remember that the democracy we live in elected the Government.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
off watch
Don't be too sad.
Rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming vocal majority of people in the country on both sides of the party political divide want the British government to join the call for an immediate cease fire.
This was the world state of play on the 21st July.
Government giving in to pressure?
Much changed since?
-------------------------------
Justifiably or not, the Israeli government decided Beirut airport was a legitimate target.
If American bombs being sent to Israel to be dropped on Lebanon are allowed to pass through a UK airport, would it be surprising if (again justifiably or not) Hezbollah decided it was a legitimate target?
Is it reasonable for the government to subject British civilians to the risk just because our ally has chosen to support Israel's actions in Lebanon?
I am deeply saddened that once again, this Government has given in to the vocal minority
Rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming vocal majority of people in the country on both sides of the party political divide want the British government to join the call for an immediate cease fire.
This was the world state of play on the 21st July.
Government giving in to pressure?
Much changed since?
-------------------------------
Justifiably or not, the Israeli government decided Beirut airport was a legitimate target.
If American bombs being sent to Israel to be dropped on Lebanon are allowed to pass through a UK airport, would it be surprising if (again justifiably or not) Hezbollah decided it was a legitimate target?
Is it reasonable for the government to subject British civilians to the risk just because our ally has chosen to support Israel's actions in Lebanon?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW1 the Americans entered 1917, 3 yrs late maybe influential for the last year
WW2 FDR was favourably disposed to helping the Allies with Lend Lease but had to wait for Pearl Harbour before declaring War. We had to accept Eisenhower as SACEUR and McCarthur in the Far East whilst gifting some UK RAF bases to the US as part payment for lend lease
Special Relationship - UK ind nuclear deterent is purchased from US
WW2 FDR was favourably disposed to helping the Allies with Lend Lease but had to wait for Pearl Harbour before declaring War. We had to accept Eisenhower as SACEUR and McCarthur in the Far East whilst gifting some UK RAF bases to the US as part payment for lend lease
Special Relationship - UK ind nuclear deterent is purchased from US
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Age: 41
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I think you're missing the obvious here.
I am Israeli and as such am very into the news and being updated with them on a daily basis.
Before those bomb shipments commenced, the UK government told the US one that it better not be using it's airspace for carrying bombs without telling them, and that even by telling them it won't make it okay.
So the Americans just as they always do (I am an American as well), did what they wanted but played it clever. They used UK airspace, but specifically made everybody involved what the flights are carrying so later on when they get to apologize to the UK government it won't have to be about things that were done without thier knowledge and so a diplomatic crisis would occur. They will say, 'we're sorry' but we didn't hide anything from you..... we published it in bold letters.
That's my 5 cents....
-downwindabeam
I think you're missing the obvious here.
I am Israeli and as such am very into the news and being updated with them on a daily basis.
Before those bomb shipments commenced, the UK government told the US one that it better not be using it's airspace for carrying bombs without telling them, and that even by telling them it won't make it okay.
So the Americans just as they always do (I am an American as well), did what they wanted but played it clever. They used UK airspace, but specifically made everybody involved what the flights are carrying so later on when they get to apologize to the UK government it won't have to be about things that were done without thier knowledge and so a diplomatic crisis would occur. They will say, 'we're sorry' but we didn't hide anything from you..... we published it in bold letters.
That's my 5 cents....
-downwindabeam
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by off watch
I find it depressing that you & one or two others feel uneasy about these flights. Is it because they are going to Israel, because they are carrying munitions through a civil airport or because they are in UK airspace?
Originally Posted by rab-k
- don't feel particularly comfortable about giving a load of ordnance safe, orderly and expeditious handling on its way to perhaps being used to blow some women and kids to bits who just so happened to be in the wrong place, if you can indeed call their own homes the "wrong place", at the wrong time
- Sure, such flights go on all the time and I have no problem with the use of such weapons against 'military' targets. However, when I read/hear about incidents like Qana, I can't help but wonder if the bombs used were on those flights.
- Again, I have no problem with legitimate 'military' targets, but soft civilian targets, whatever the excuse, are unacceptable - on both sides!
- If the IDF want to use a kind of 'scorched-earth' policy to create a 'buffer zone', cleansed of its resident civilian population amongst which Hezbo' guerrillas could operate, then there ain't a great deal I can do about it. But it doesn't mean that I enjoy, in my own insignificant and indirect way, feeling a part of that process.
- Having seen the images on TV and having formed an opinion on a subject independent of and not connected in any way to my job, then to be told that by the way, have you seen the XYZ123, check out the cargo on the FPL and the destination, then of course my already formed opinion will affect how I feel.
- Sure, such flights go on all the time and I have no problem with the use of such weapons against 'military' targets. However, when I read/hear about incidents like Qana, I can't help but wonder if the bombs used were on those flights.
- Again, I have no problem with legitimate 'military' targets, but soft civilian targets, whatever the excuse, are unacceptable - on both sides!
- If the IDF want to use a kind of 'scorched-earth' policy to create a 'buffer zone', cleansed of its resident civilian population amongst which Hezbo' guerrillas could operate, then there ain't a great deal I can do about it. But it doesn't mean that I enjoy, in my own insignificant and indirect way, feeling a part of that process.
- Having seen the images on TV and having formed an opinion on a subject independent of and not connected in any way to my job, then to be told that by the way, have you seen the XYZ123, check out the cargo on the FPL and the destination, then of course my already formed opinion will affect how I feel.
Originally Posted by off watch
I am deeply saddened that once again, this Government has given in to the vocal minority - how easily we forget our friends !
PS London Mil - brush -
Last edited by rab-k; 2nd Aug 2006 at 06:56.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK in the ICC dock???
Unlike the US and Israel, the UK has both signed and ratified its membership of the International Criminal Court. Should Israel have breached the 1st Protocol of the Geneva Convention Articles 51, 52 & 57, the UK could face a charge in the ICC of "Aiding and Abetting".
In assisting in the supply of weapons from the US to Israel, should these weapons be shown to have been used in breach of those Geneva Convention Articles, the ICC Statute suggests that "mere knowledge that the assistance will assist in the commission of the crimes is required" (to prosecute). Any practical assistance, even of an indirect nature, would likewise result in the same.
Thererfore, unlike Israel and the US, the UK could find itself in the dock at the ICC for merely allowing the weapons to transit through UK airfields.
I'm no legal eagle, but it makes you think...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/5236946.stm
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
http://www.un.org/icty/Supplement/su...furundzija.htm
(Sorry - just opened a huuuuge door for thread drift, but thought some of you may be interested. I wonder how uneasy I'll feel being party to the "Aiding and Abetting" of a........... No! Best not go there!)
Unlike the US and Israel, the UK has both signed and ratified its membership of the International Criminal Court. Should Israel have breached the 1st Protocol of the Geneva Convention Articles 51, 52 & 57, the UK could face a charge in the ICC of "Aiding and Abetting".
In assisting in the supply of weapons from the US to Israel, should these weapons be shown to have been used in breach of those Geneva Convention Articles, the ICC Statute suggests that "mere knowledge that the assistance will assist in the commission of the crimes is required" (to prosecute). Any practical assistance, even of an indirect nature, would likewise result in the same.
Thererfore, unlike Israel and the US, the UK could find itself in the dock at the ICC for merely allowing the weapons to transit through UK airfields.
I'm no legal eagle, but it makes you think...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/5236946.stm
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
http://www.un.org/icty/Supplement/su...furundzija.htm
(Sorry - just opened a huuuuge door for thread drift, but thought some of you may be interested. I wonder how uneasy I'll feel being party to the "Aiding and Abetting" of a........... No! Best not go there!)
Last edited by rab-k; 2nd Aug 2006 at 10:34.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALMOST worth it to see Blair in the dock.
I wish I was a human rights lawyer. They seem so fair and honest and unbiased and with our countries best interests at heart. Perhaps if was was against the Human Rights Act we could put all the nasty aggresors in the dock. That WOULD teach them!
Unless they kill us all first!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!
I wish I was a human rights lawyer. They seem so fair and honest and unbiased and with our countries best interests at heart. Perhaps if was was against the Human Rights Act we could put all the nasty aggresors in the dock. That WOULD teach them!
Unless they kill us all first!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: FG11
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by off watch
The USA has been helping Britain & her Allies since April 1917 in various global conflicts. I am deeply saddened that once again, this Government has given in to the vocal minority - how easily we forget our friends !
ha ha, thats the best joke I've heard!!!! Friend?! Since when did your friend ask you for countless 'favours' then screw you over whenever you ask them to do anything for you? 
Blair is not bush's friend, hes just his b!tch.
