RNZAF jets sold!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR-on.....personally I really dont care for your ****/....woomera has warned me about calling people ****ty names so I will respect his wishes out of respect for the position he is in.....personally ...Id like to kick your arse as you have proven on several occasions that you are just a political agitator bent on making worthless confrontations which amount to nothing.....what you need to do is PM me/.....I will give you my address and we can meet to discuss this on a "personal level"...
......as previously stated ..The NZ govt has on numerous occasions forgotten they are part of the whole world..we have obligations and we need to meet those expectations////MOR.... run for parliment....ie\
M...minister
O....of
R...REDNECKS
b*** m**........pukuiri
......as previously stated ..The NZ govt has on numerous occasions forgotten they are part of the whole world..we have obligations and we need to meet those expectations////MOR.... run for parliment....ie\ M...minister
O....of
R...REDNECKS
b*** m**........pukuiri
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the aircraft are going to the same company, Tactical Air Services Inc in the USA.
ATSI lists tactical air services as one of their capabilities, but I'm not necessarily sure that it's them that have bought the aircraft. I am aware of their prominent interest over the last 3 years and they may have started an off-shoot company as Tactical Air Services Inc are in a partnership with Alenia.
Pakeha-boy, I think you'd be well advised to heed Womera's previous warning. Offering violence in any form cannot be tolerated, particularly from behind a pseudenom. Your post about this being the Nat's fault is confusing, perhaps you'd like to clarify your comments?
National, while in office, certainly underfunded defence in NZ for years but had started to make amends with a program of capital replacement. Labour, and Helen Clark in particular, ran her own agenda (with some help from factions within the Army), and refused to listen to the advice from her own comittees
ATSI lists tactical air services as one of their capabilities, but I'm not necessarily sure that it's them that have bought the aircraft. I am aware of their prominent interest over the last 3 years and they may have started an off-shoot company as Tactical Air Services Inc are in a partnership with Alenia.
Pakeha-boy, I think you'd be well advised to heed Womera's previous warning. Offering violence in any form cannot be tolerated, particularly from behind a pseudenom. Your post about this being the Nat's fault is confusing, perhaps you'd like to clarify your comments?
National, while in office, certainly underfunded defence in NZ for years but had started to make amends with a program of capital replacement. Labour, and Helen Clark in particular, ran her own agenda (with some help from factions within the Army), and refused to listen to the advice from her own comittees
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pakeha-boy
Sorry, I don't frequent the Porirua Ghetto very often.
Why don't you and the homies come and visit me on the coast. A pity that the only way you can argue is with your fists/knife etc., but there you go.
Anyway, to help plug the holes in your education - left in the fifth form did we...?
NZ became nuclear-free in 1984 under a Labour government, which led to our "withdrawal" from ANZUS. This came about from a refusal to allow a nuclear submarine into our waters in 1972, by the then Labour government. The subsequent National government (1975) dropped all restrictions to nuclear ship visits in 1976. This policy continued until Labour regained power in 1984. IN 1986, our membership of ANZUS ended (under a Labour administration).
So the simple facts are that Labour has pursued a policy of military isolationism and a continual erosion in the size and quality of our armed forces. National has a policy that is opposed to this.
In other words, your reference to National as being the problem is about as true as the stuff that the Iraqi Information Minister used to come out with.
Now if you cannot grasp this simple recitation of the facts of history, you should really refrain from posting as your ignorance is quite telling.
[edited for typos, not sentiment]
Sorry, I don't frequent the Porirua Ghetto very often.
Why don't you and the homies come and visit me on the coast. A pity that the only way you can argue is with your fists/knife etc., but there you go.
Anyway, to help plug the holes in your education - left in the fifth form did we...?
NZ became nuclear-free in 1984 under a Labour government, which led to our "withdrawal" from ANZUS. This came about from a refusal to allow a nuclear submarine into our waters in 1972, by the then Labour government. The subsequent National government (1975) dropped all restrictions to nuclear ship visits in 1976. This policy continued until Labour regained power in 1984. IN 1986, our membership of ANZUS ended (under a Labour administration).
So the simple facts are that Labour has pursued a policy of military isolationism and a continual erosion in the size and quality of our armed forces. National has a policy that is opposed to this.
In other words, your reference to National as being the problem is about as true as the stuff that the Iraqi Information Minister used to come out with.
Now if you cannot grasp this simple recitation of the facts of history, you should really refrain from posting as your ignorance is quite telling.
[edited for typos, not sentiment]
Last edited by MOR; 13th Sep 2005 at 06:52.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I hope that ATSI is actually a front for a bunch of interested Kiwi airpeople (perhaps based somewhere near Wanaka?) who will buy back all those wonderful noise machines!
And as a Kiwi taxpayer of some 26 years, I was more than happy to see my hard-earned tax dollars spent on Kiwi Red and all those fine exhibitions of low-flying when I had my time at the Cat 2 ATC units around the country.
And, judging by the faces of the kids I observed at the various airshows and those of their parents, I would say I am in a large club of admirers.
Don't get me started about the flow-on benefits of having even older-model fighters on the books.
Helen, you are the weakest link. Goodbye after the election, one hopes!
And as a Kiwi taxpayer of some 26 years, I was more than happy to see my hard-earned tax dollars spent on Kiwi Red and all those fine exhibitions of low-flying when I had my time at the Cat 2 ATC units around the country.
And, judging by the faces of the kids I observed at the various airshows and those of their parents, I would say I am in a large club of admirers.
Don't get me started about the flow-on benefits of having even older-model fighters on the books.
Helen, you are the weakest link. Goodbye after the election, one hopes!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Small things really.
The A-4's did fire an unguided Zunni rocket at a fishing trawler many years ago to stop it as it was outrunning our Frigate sent to intercept it. (Is that classed as Operational Action?)
And, we don't have an anti-nuclear policy, it's an anti-American policy. Why?
Because we allow ships from China and Inda (both N Powers) here but not US/UK ships.
The A-4's did fire an unguided Zunni rocket at a fishing trawler many years ago to stop it as it was outrunning our Frigate sent to intercept it. (Is that classed as Operational Action?)
And, we don't have an anti-nuclear policy, it's an anti-American policy. Why?
Because we allow ships from China and Inda (both N Powers) here but not US/UK ships.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is that we know that they are non-nuclear ships with no nuclear weapons, whereas the US refuses to "confirm or deny" the presence or absence of nuclear power or weapons - so the government chooses to assume that one or the other is present.
It isn't strictly anti-American therefore, but I agree with your sentiment.
It isn't strictly anti-American therefore, but I agree with your sentiment.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we Really Know? .......
So our Govt. believes totally the Chinese when they say, no, no auntie helen, we have no nukes on board....
And we didn't mean to steal those kiwifruit (or apple) branches and make them better in China....
So our Govt. believes totally the Chinese when they say, no, no auntie helen, we have no nukes on board....
And we didn't mean to steal those kiwifruit (or apple) branches and make them better in China....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely agree with you... but the Chinese etc do at least go through the motions of saying yes or no, whereas the Americans refuse to do so and therefore force the governments hand.
The whole thing is load of nonsense anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the whole nuclear-free policy is piece of luddite stupidity. I spent 16 years living within 10 miles of a nuclear weapons storage facility, and 25 miles from a nuclear power station, in a country where the risks are actually understood, and effectively managed.
"Nuclear -free" will keep us in the 20th century forever.
The whole thing is load of nonsense anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the whole nuclear-free policy is piece of luddite stupidity. I spent 16 years living within 10 miles of a nuclear weapons storage facility, and 25 miles from a nuclear power station, in a country where the risks are actually understood, and effectively managed.
"Nuclear -free" will keep us in the 20th century forever.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, they can keep my name on "my jet".
From this article it appears that Tactical Air Services is a separate company from ATSI
Air Force past protected
14.09.05
New Zealand's Skyhawk fighter bombers will keep New Zealand colours and some markings when they are shipped to a new life in America.
The Government has sold the 17 Skyhawks and the 17 Aermacchi jet trainers to American company Tactical Air Services which will train fighter pilots for the American Air Force and other American allies.
The Skyhawks will stay in their New Zealand green colour and keep at least their No 75 Squadron and No 2 Squadron markings when their new owners begin contract work with the American Air Force and Navy and other friendly defence forces to train fighter pilots.
The New Zealand Kiwi, roundels and New Zealand numbers will be removed.
"We will preserve the great heritage of the RNZAF. We will do that, absolutely," Tactical Air Services chairman and former US Navy fighter pilot Hoss Pearson said yesterday.
"Whatever we are allowed to do to preserve the New Zealand heritage," he said.
The deal was worth $155 million, believed to be made up of about $50m for the Skyhawks and the balance for the Aermacchis.
It will take about $12m for the Skyhawks to be regenerated into flying condition by Safe Air in Blenheim.
With other costs deducted, including the cost of dumping the air combat wing, moving the Australian-based squadron back to New Zealand, maintaining the mothballed jets and marketing them internationally, the Government will get about $120m.
The Aermacchis need little or no work but Safe Air engineers were expected to start on the Skyhawks within a week or so and the first is likely to be shipped out of New Zealand before Christmas.
Mr Pearson said the aircraft were in "beautiful shape".
"The Macchis are really like new and maybe less than 10 per cent of their life has been used. It is the trainer of choice."
The Italian-built Aermacchis were bought by the Government between 1991 and 1993 and with a top speed of 960km/h, are considered an ideal training jet for fighter pilots.
"These aeroplanes were designed for 12,000 hours and only 1500 hours have been used. They are just great aeroplanes," Mr Pearson said from the United States.
Mr Pearson was involved with another American Company, Advanced Training Systems International, which almost bought the New Zealand Skyhawks in 2003.
The deal went sour with internal company woes, but Mr Pearson said then the Skyhawks had been well maintained and were in excellent condition.
The sale is conditional on the US State Department permitting the importation of the aircraft into the US but Defence Minister Mark Burton said on Monday that was not expected to be a problem.
- NZPA
Air Force past protected
14.09.05
New Zealand's Skyhawk fighter bombers will keep New Zealand colours and some markings when they are shipped to a new life in America.
The Government has sold the 17 Skyhawks and the 17 Aermacchi jet trainers to American company Tactical Air Services which will train fighter pilots for the American Air Force and other American allies.
The Skyhawks will stay in their New Zealand green colour and keep at least their No 75 Squadron and No 2 Squadron markings when their new owners begin contract work with the American Air Force and Navy and other friendly defence forces to train fighter pilots.
The New Zealand Kiwi, roundels and New Zealand numbers will be removed.
"We will preserve the great heritage of the RNZAF. We will do that, absolutely," Tactical Air Services chairman and former US Navy fighter pilot Hoss Pearson said yesterday.
"Whatever we are allowed to do to preserve the New Zealand heritage," he said.
The deal was worth $155 million, believed to be made up of about $50m for the Skyhawks and the balance for the Aermacchis.
It will take about $12m for the Skyhawks to be regenerated into flying condition by Safe Air in Blenheim.
With other costs deducted, including the cost of dumping the air combat wing, moving the Australian-based squadron back to New Zealand, maintaining the mothballed jets and marketing them internationally, the Government will get about $120m.
The Aermacchis need little or no work but Safe Air engineers were expected to start on the Skyhawks within a week or so and the first is likely to be shipped out of New Zealand before Christmas.
Mr Pearson said the aircraft were in "beautiful shape".
"The Macchis are really like new and maybe less than 10 per cent of their life has been used. It is the trainer of choice."
The Italian-built Aermacchis were bought by the Government between 1991 and 1993 and with a top speed of 960km/h, are considered an ideal training jet for fighter pilots.
"These aeroplanes were designed for 12,000 hours and only 1500 hours have been used. They are just great aeroplanes," Mr Pearson said from the United States.
Mr Pearson was involved with another American Company, Advanced Training Systems International, which almost bought the New Zealand Skyhawks in 2003.
The deal went sour with internal company woes, but Mr Pearson said then the Skyhawks had been well maintained and were in excellent condition.
The sale is conditional on the US State Department permitting the importation of the aircraft into the US but Defence Minister Mark Burton said on Monday that was not expected to be a problem.
- NZPA
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"its the trainer of choice", that explains why nz were the only country that ordered that particular model when everyone else was ordering hawks
Another chapter has finally come to an end in that New Zealand epic- bludging!
Both sides of the political fence are content without a token committment to an air combat capability. Money saved has not been reinvested into the NZ defence force which faces block obsolesence of equipment and a limited ability to contribute to anything but peacekeeping.
A New Zealand fighter squadron, even with older A4's, was a solid fundamental for regional security, when operated alongside the RAAF. An F16 squadron would have undisputably maintained regional superiority of the RAAF/RNZAF in the decade ahead as Australia replaces it's own fighter & bomber squadrons.
If New Zealanders can not see the merit of an air combat wing in future regional operations, then the logic of airpower in the war on terror has been lost on them aswell. A4's, with the Kiwi upgrade, are superb counter-insurgency platforms. Modern F16's with RNZAF professionalism even better. An investment in air to ground missiles for the P3's to work with NZ SAS in offensive counter-terrorist operations another option.
Yet the Kiwis again choose to bludge.
In Mindanao Island in the Southern Phillipines, home grown terrorist groups have linked up and are providing a training ground for regional jihadists such as Jehmiah Islamiah ( Bali bombings ). Rogue religious money from the Gulf state and Saudi Arabia is slowly making it's way to the terrorist coffers. Al Queda is involved but no doubt a little frustrated at how money disappears in the Phillipines without result.
In recent offensives against Islamic terrorists, the Phillipine air force has been using turbo-prop aircraft with light weight striking power- rockets & machine guns not much evolved from WW2 Mustangs. The Phillipines wanted but could not afford the RNZAF Skyhawks which would have been far more effective.
A gift of the A4's to the Phillipines, with leftover munitions and Kiwi instructor pilots or mercenaries, would have been a very real contribution to the war on terror- though probably politically hard to stomach.
But alas, the New Zealanders again chose their familar path of least resistance- to bludge!
Tactical Air Services?
In the eighties, it was strange it did not dawn on more people, that the US State Department approved the sale of 36 ex-USAF F4 Phantoms to impoverished and technically under developed Bolivia. The F4's never made it to Bolivia- American patriots Olli North had them broken up and sold to Iran. The rest is history with profits supplying the Contra Gate scandal in Cental America.
Perhaps Tactical Air Services is another front for American patriots such as Oliver North. It seems odd and unlikely that the US services would use the former RNZAF to provide for it's sausage machine output of fighter pilots! More specialist training granted.
It would be politically embarrassing for Ms Helen Clarke if the former RNZAF ends up fighting a dirty, controversial little war somewhere around the world. Maybe New Zealand Skyhawks will end up fighting in the Southern Phillipines under the cover of a private corporation!
Both sides of the political fence are content without a token committment to an air combat capability. Money saved has not been reinvested into the NZ defence force which faces block obsolesence of equipment and a limited ability to contribute to anything but peacekeeping.
A New Zealand fighter squadron, even with older A4's, was a solid fundamental for regional security, when operated alongside the RAAF. An F16 squadron would have undisputably maintained regional superiority of the RAAF/RNZAF in the decade ahead as Australia replaces it's own fighter & bomber squadrons.
If New Zealanders can not see the merit of an air combat wing in future regional operations, then the logic of airpower in the war on terror has been lost on them aswell. A4's, with the Kiwi upgrade, are superb counter-insurgency platforms. Modern F16's with RNZAF professionalism even better. An investment in air to ground missiles for the P3's to work with NZ SAS in offensive counter-terrorist operations another option.
Yet the Kiwis again choose to bludge.
In Mindanao Island in the Southern Phillipines, home grown terrorist groups have linked up and are providing a training ground for regional jihadists such as Jehmiah Islamiah ( Bali bombings ). Rogue religious money from the Gulf state and Saudi Arabia is slowly making it's way to the terrorist coffers. Al Queda is involved but no doubt a little frustrated at how money disappears in the Phillipines without result.
In recent offensives against Islamic terrorists, the Phillipine air force has been using turbo-prop aircraft with light weight striking power- rockets & machine guns not much evolved from WW2 Mustangs. The Phillipines wanted but could not afford the RNZAF Skyhawks which would have been far more effective.
A gift of the A4's to the Phillipines, with leftover munitions and Kiwi instructor pilots or mercenaries, would have been a very real contribution to the war on terror- though probably politically hard to stomach.
But alas, the New Zealanders again chose their familar path of least resistance- to bludge!
Tactical Air Services?
In the eighties, it was strange it did not dawn on more people, that the US State Department approved the sale of 36 ex-USAF F4 Phantoms to impoverished and technically under developed Bolivia. The F4's never made it to Bolivia- American patriots Olli North had them broken up and sold to Iran. The rest is history with profits supplying the Contra Gate scandal in Cental America.
Perhaps Tactical Air Services is another front for American patriots such as Oliver North. It seems odd and unlikely that the US services would use the former RNZAF to provide for it's sausage machine output of fighter pilots! More specialist training granted.
It would be politically embarrassing for Ms Helen Clarke if the former RNZAF ends up fighting a dirty, controversial little war somewhere around the world. Maybe New Zealand Skyhawks will end up fighting in the Southern Phillipines under the cover of a private corporation!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 14th Sep 2005 at 10:49.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of holes in that argument.
First of all, the loss of the strike wing can be laid squarely at the door of the Labour Government. The problem now is that, even if National get in, the cost of standing up the strike wing again is likely to utterly prohibitive. It's a bit like trying to get Concorde flying again - theoretically possible, but way too expensive.
Secondly, NZ has no need for a counter-insurgency capability. Such a capability against terrorists is not only a complete waste of time - how would it have helped in any of the attacks to date - but logistically not feasible if the camps are in the Phillipines. That is a matter for the Phillipines and their allies.
Calling NZ a bludger is a bit rich coming from Oz.
Of course I would be the first to agree that the dismantling of the strike wing was a mistake of epic proportions. I am sure we will end up regretting it.
First of all, the loss of the strike wing can be laid squarely at the door of the Labour Government. The problem now is that, even if National get in, the cost of standing up the strike wing again is likely to utterly prohibitive. It's a bit like trying to get Concorde flying again - theoretically possible, but way too expensive.
Secondly, NZ has no need for a counter-insurgency capability. Such a capability against terrorists is not only a complete waste of time - how would it have helped in any of the attacks to date - but logistically not feasible if the camps are in the Phillipines. That is a matter for the Phillipines and their allies.
Calling NZ a bludger is a bit rich coming from Oz.
Of course I would be the first to agree that the dismantling of the strike wing was a mistake of epic proportions. I am sure we will end up regretting it.
Well, they have an impressive web-site.
They claim to be already involved in aggressor training and lead-in training for foreign airforces. Does anyone have any inside info confirming this?
They claim to be already involved in aggressor training and lead-in training for foreign airforces. Does anyone have any inside info confirming this?
Wiz
The mentioning of keeping the former livery of the RNZAF a reasonable hint that the A4's will be target practice for frontline American pilots in training.
MOR
Why don't we address all the "holes" then?
Where there is a will there is away. With Australian help and and NZ political committment your air combat wing could be reinstated- in whatever guise. Stand alone capability, joint ANZAC squadron, RAAF does your training etc- Orions with stand off missiles an air combat capability too.
There is no political or national will for a viable NZ Defence Force- keep bludging!
Your second paragraph perplexing. Firstly, your air combat wing was flexible with the professionalism of the RNZAF. Counter-insurgency was a role that could be delivered along with a number of other roles should unforseen situations arise.
Counter-insugrency is a role your SAS is undertaking in Afganistan- with "borrowed" air support if needed. In the war on terror where small units do a lot of the fighting without much ground support, a counter-insurgency/ close air support role from air forces has become the most prominent mission of the present period.
You were very, very New Zealand in your mention that the buildup of Al Queda and friends in the southern Phillipines the responsibility of the Phillipines and it's "allies" only - another isolationist Kiwi not to think a terrorist training ground in the Phillipines a regional or national threat ( albeit to expats/tourists in New Zealand's case ).
Finally, Australians have every right to call New Zealanders bludgers- and not just on defence matters.
The mentioning of keeping the former livery of the RNZAF a reasonable hint that the A4's will be target practice for frontline American pilots in training.
MOR
Why don't we address all the "holes" then?
Where there is a will there is away. With Australian help and and NZ political committment your air combat wing could be reinstated- in whatever guise. Stand alone capability, joint ANZAC squadron, RAAF does your training etc- Orions with stand off missiles an air combat capability too.
There is no political or national will for a viable NZ Defence Force- keep bludging!
Your second paragraph perplexing. Firstly, your air combat wing was flexible with the professionalism of the RNZAF. Counter-insurgency was a role that could be delivered along with a number of other roles should unforseen situations arise.
Counter-insugrency is a role your SAS is undertaking in Afganistan- with "borrowed" air support if needed. In the war on terror where small units do a lot of the fighting without much ground support, a counter-insurgency/ close air support role from air forces has become the most prominent mission of the present period.
You were very, very New Zealand in your mention that the buildup of Al Queda and friends in the southern Phillipines the responsibility of the Phillipines and it's "allies" only - another isolationist Kiwi not to think a terrorist training ground in the Phillipines a regional or national threat ( albeit to expats/tourists in New Zealand's case ).
Finally, Australians have every right to call New Zealanders bludgers- and not just on defence matters.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the Australian help came in the form of billions of dollars, there would be no political commitment - because it would be political suicide. "Sorry Mrs Jones, you can't have your hip replacement because we need to save for some new planes that we will never use in anger..."
There IS political and national will for a Defence Force (which is what we have), but NOT a strike force... unless of course you are saying that offence is the best form of defence.
Counter insurgency only works if you have the reach to implement it. We don't. The lesson of the Falklands was that a small force a long way from home is extremely vulnerable.
Our involvement in Afghanistan is essentially in intelligence, not combat.
As far as the Phillipines goes, they are not "regional" to us. Fiji, maybe. Phillipines, not so much. They are certainly not a threat in any direct sense. I would be far more concerned with other training grounds a bit closer to home, for example all those countries to the north of Oz.
One of the benefits of being a small island nation is that it is relatively easy to spot likely terror suspects... but only if you pay close attention to your borders, which is what we are currently doing with the small force left to us. Australia never has, and never will, assist in that task. Mostly they are too busy whining about McDonalds using NZ spuds for their fries.
I think you thoroughly misunderstand the war on terror, the level of risk that various countries face, and the areas of responsibility each nation must address. The Phillipines is not an issue for us (although it will be for you).
That doesn't mean I don't think we should have a strike force, or that we should use it. We should. However, the damage is done now.
And we are bludgers in the same way that you are convicts. More fool you for taking all our rejects...
There IS political and national will for a Defence Force (which is what we have), but NOT a strike force... unless of course you are saying that offence is the best form of defence.
Counter insurgency only works if you have the reach to implement it. We don't. The lesson of the Falklands was that a small force a long way from home is extremely vulnerable.
Our involvement in Afghanistan is essentially in intelligence, not combat.
As far as the Phillipines goes, they are not "regional" to us. Fiji, maybe. Phillipines, not so much. They are certainly not a threat in any direct sense. I would be far more concerned with other training grounds a bit closer to home, for example all those countries to the north of Oz.
One of the benefits of being a small island nation is that it is relatively easy to spot likely terror suspects... but only if you pay close attention to your borders, which is what we are currently doing with the small force left to us. Australia never has, and never will, assist in that task. Mostly they are too busy whining about McDonalds using NZ spuds for their fries.
I think you thoroughly misunderstand the war on terror, the level of risk that various countries face, and the areas of responsibility each nation must address. The Phillipines is not an issue for us (although it will be for you).
That doesn't mean I don't think we should have a strike force, or that we should use it. We should. However, the damage is done now.
And we are bludgers in the same way that you are convicts. More fool you for taking all our rejects...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: aintsaying
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current labour Government shut down the RNZAF fighter wing.
Helen Clark (with a wisper in her ear) cancelled the F16's.
The new National government will have a clean slate to start from to purchase a new fighter wing.
What the new fighter wing will be is anyones guess.
Helen Clark (with a wisper in her ear) cancelled the F16's.
The new National government will have a clean slate to start from to purchase a new fighter wing.
What the new fighter wing will be is anyones guess.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg
Were you actually serious about this?
Donate our ex-military hardware to a state that could quite forseeably blur the line between terrorist insurgency and popular uprising/seperatist movement? Been there before with western involvement in Indonesia.
Nothing would play more in to the hands of AQ and make New Zealand more at risk than such an offer, for absolutely minimal gain for either NZ or the Philippines.
Line of least resistance, yes. hardly a bludge, and sound, sensible policy.
A gift of the A4's to the Phillipines, with leftover munitions and Kiwi instructor pilots or mercenaries, would have been a very real contribution to the war on terror- though probably politically hard to stomach.
Donate our ex-military hardware to a state that could quite forseeably blur the line between terrorist insurgency and popular uprising/seperatist movement? Been there before with western involvement in Indonesia.
Nothing would play more in to the hands of AQ and make New Zealand more at risk than such an offer, for absolutely minimal gain for either NZ or the Philippines.
Line of least resistance, yes. hardly a bludge, and sound, sensible policy.