RNZAF jets sold!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez
Gnadenburg, as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, most if not all Kiwis are completely fecked off at the Labour government for not upgrading the stike arm, and of course disbanding it. We all feel that we are not doing our bit, and it certainly ticks me off, and no, I would not, and have never, voted labour. Point05 is quite right, and its name is Helen.....
You say "An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job" with respect to the Aussie SAS ground operations being supported by the RAF. So then, why is it ok for the RAF to provide the Aussie SAS with ground support, but you bag the Kiwis when the yanks or RAF do the same for us? Where is your own RAAF then? Are they operating there? When a call comes for ground attack operations, it is a joint command decision, whatever assets are available at the time are sent, they don't hold off until the RAAF can come and bomb the ragheads just cause some grunt from Oz is holding the laser.
You say "An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job" with respect to the Aussie SAS ground operations being supported by the RAF. So then, why is it ok for the RAF to provide the Aussie SAS with ground support, but you bag the Kiwis when the yanks or RAF do the same for us? Where is your own RAAF then? Are they operating there? When a call comes for ground attack operations, it is a joint command decision, whatever assets are available at the time are sent, they don't hold off until the RAAF can come and bomb the ragheads just cause some grunt from Oz is holding the laser.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, well made. Yet again, we come back to the intent of our respective governments.
I will give the Kiwis credit for sorting out their navy though. If only all of our interests were constrained to the South Pacific ...........
I will give the Kiwis credit for sorting out their navy though. If only all of our interests were constrained to the South Pacific ...........
NoseGear
It is hard enough getting someone to admit they're a New Zealander, let alone the fact they voted Labor. It was doubtful, victory for the conservative government would have resulted in a reinstatement of the strike wing- so I would say your statement that most, if not all Kiwi's fecked off with the labor government should be more along the lines that, due isolation, Kiwi's have learnt that they can bludge in defence too.
What makes it all worse is the parochialism of the New Zealander. For example, even though your defence forces are so appallingly run down, 90% of their roles could be fullfilled by contracted civil defence services, you keep in place an air force with expensive, unneccessary structures for the capability it delivers.
But to disband your air force, create a cheaper and as effective civilian flying wing, would be a total admission by the New Zealnder that they are bludgers. As it stands, the fascade that is the New Zealand Defence Force, has you all pretending you have a role to play in regional issues.
On your last contention, RAAF fighters could slot in and replace RAF Harriers at deployments end in a close air support role- and it may happen. Granted, your reference to joint operations, which returns us to the fact that the only meaningful combat capability the New Zealanders have is a handful of SAS- who arrive in thearte ineffective until they can beg, borrow or steal suitable equipment their bludging public won't provide them with!
It is hard enough getting someone to admit they're a New Zealander, let alone the fact they voted Labor. It was doubtful, victory for the conservative government would have resulted in a reinstatement of the strike wing- so I would say your statement that most, if not all Kiwi's fecked off with the labor government should be more along the lines that, due isolation, Kiwi's have learnt that they can bludge in defence too.
What makes it all worse is the parochialism of the New Zealander. For example, even though your defence forces are so appallingly run down, 90% of their roles could be fullfilled by contracted civil defence services, you keep in place an air force with expensive, unneccessary structures for the capability it delivers.
But to disband your air force, create a cheaper and as effective civilian flying wing, would be a total admission by the New Zealnder that they are bludgers. As it stands, the fascade that is the New Zealand Defence Force, has you all pretending you have a role to play in regional issues.
On your last contention, RAAF fighters could slot in and replace RAF Harriers at deployments end in a close air support role- and it may happen. Granted, your reference to joint operations, which returns us to the fact that the only meaningful combat capability the New Zealanders have is a handful of SAS- who arrive in thearte ineffective until they can beg, borrow or steal suitable equipment their bludging public won't provide them with!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Anywhere I want
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadburger
Your last comment was so far off the mark, it's outta the solar system!
It is the NZSAS that have Tier 1 recognition with the yanks, not your Oz lot which are Tier 2!!
The "acquiring" of required kit is usually left to the standard forces. (And unfortunately if you mention the first Afg. deployment was a bit embarrasing for the RNZAF)
It would however be nice if the Govt. would recognise that effort and inform the public of what an outstanding job they are doing fighting terrorism, than what the Lab. Govt would rather do and close the whole shop down.
Your last comment was so far off the mark, it's outta the solar system!
It is the NZSAS that have Tier 1 recognition with the yanks, not your Oz lot which are Tier 2!!
The "acquiring" of required kit is usually left to the standard forces. (And unfortunately if you mention the first Afg. deployment was a bit embarrasing for the RNZAF)
It would however be nice if the Govt. would recognise that effort and inform the public of what an outstanding job they are doing fighting terrorism, than what the Lab. Govt would rather do and close the whole shop down.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg, you've obviously got an axe to grind about so called bludging kiwis and will dish up any old tripe to take a shot at us. But let me tell you this mate, us "bludgers" would be the first to cue up to help you out if anyone tried to give Aussie the slipper. By the way, I am proud to be a kiwi and would never vote labour.
Your own arguments contradict themselves. How can you expect anyone to believe that "its hard to get anyone to admit to being a NZer" and then in the next paragraph call us all so parochial. Well, which is it? You lambast us for having an "expensive and badly structured" airforce that should be contracted out to Civil Defense, but then say if we did that, we'd be bludgers, just not hiding it anymore. Can't win with you can we? I have no doubt that if we took your advice, your howls of "Bludgers" would be heard across the Tasman.
Finally, if your defence forces are so involed in the war against terror, why then is the RAAF sitting at home? Both our respective countries have special forces on the ground, and NZ has sent engineering teams to Afghanistan and the Gulf. Both countries have sent Air transport and Naval equipment to the Gulf and Afganistan. Both countries are contributing. Might want to check your facts again, mate, lest someone call you a bludger.
Nosey
Your own arguments contradict themselves. How can you expect anyone to believe that "its hard to get anyone to admit to being a NZer" and then in the next paragraph call us all so parochial. Well, which is it? You lambast us for having an "expensive and badly structured" airforce that should be contracted out to Civil Defense, but then say if we did that, we'd be bludgers, just not hiding it anymore. Can't win with you can we? I have no doubt that if we took your advice, your howls of "Bludgers" would be heard across the Tasman.
Finally, if your defence forces are so involed in the war against terror, why then is the RAAF sitting at home? Both our respective countries have special forces on the ground, and NZ has sent engineering teams to Afghanistan and the Gulf. Both countries have sent Air transport and Naval equipment to the Gulf and Afganistan. Both countries are contributing. Might want to check your facts again, mate, lest someone call you a bludger.
Nosey
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first I had to smile when I saw that this one had been resurrected. I was even going to write a reasoned response - in fact I had completed it - but it is obvious that Gnadenburg , as others have noted, is just on a Kiwi-kicking spree. He is under the misguided impression that NZ share Australias concerns when it comes to defence.
Frankly, I would prefer to have nothing to do with Australia on defence matters. It is bad enough that our new (Australian-built) naval ships are going to be of dubious quality and suitability, based on old and inferior designs. How we got suckered into that one is beyond me (another Labour boondoggle).
Gnadenburg, your perspective on defence matters is, to be charitable, unique (and if not being charitable, "bizarre" or "ridiculous"). All you want to do is label Kiwis "bludgers". Fine, I'll label Aussies "convicts" and "underarm bowlers" and we'll leave it at that, shall we? Because your arguments are so facile as to be not worthy of further comment.
Frankly, I would prefer to have nothing to do with Australia on defence matters. It is bad enough that our new (Australian-built) naval ships are going to be of dubious quality and suitability, based on old and inferior designs. How we got suckered into that one is beyond me (another Labour boondoggle).
Gnadenburg, your perspective on defence matters is, to be charitable, unique (and if not being charitable, "bizarre" or "ridiculous"). All you want to do is label Kiwis "bludgers". Fine, I'll label Aussies "convicts" and "underarm bowlers" and we'll leave it at that, shall we? Because your arguments are so facile as to be not worthy of further comment.
CT7
Anecdotally, I was aware NZ SAS hastily borrowed equipment in Afganistan when they arrived. The rumour they performed logistical tasks for German soldiers ( digging latrines ) until they had suitable equipment probably a Furphy. However, can I ask, didn't they borrrow desert patrol vehicles etc of the Americans?
Granted, even socialist Helen has realised, what a superb capability your SAS is, with little relative expense, consequent funding and upgrading has been in place.
Must be the first time a NZ unit has been tier one. Perhaps, it's the independance of operation and nature of their tasks that our SAS is tier 2 in Afganistan. In another thearte, where they had a task and responsibility of keeping Israel out of the war, I find it hard to imagine their resource access not primary.
Nosegear
Promises, promises! What are you going to send in with your generous offer to assist Australia? Despite being isolationist, don't you see a regional skirmish in Asia, a responsibility of New Zealands and not just lending assistance to someone giving Oz the slipper so to speak? Shall we protect your trade routes?
Obviously the minor contingency of piracy in the Malacca a concern, you've offered an Orion, but a more serious skirmish in the region that would close those straits, you could do little in the way of participation.
The RAAF and about 500 other jets are home right now, the battle requires token airpower now but as mentioned, and as discussed in governemnt circles, the RAAF could take on a role in Afganistan.
MOR
We have been waiting with bated breath for your return! After slagging off the former capability of the RNZAF, and rebuking a simple analogy to the relevance of airpower in today's war fighting scenarios, you were going to offer rebuttle quoting Harrier Mate that the RNZAF Skyhawks irrelevant because a Harrier can hover and deliver it's bombs more accurately.
Your silence appreciated!
Dave Martin
Well Dave, you are the first I've come accross who admits the folly.
It's a good, each way bet though, by your socialist government, to secretly commit your troops to a very active combat role in Afganistan, but quietly come accross as Doves.
Hopefully, AQ hasn't noticed and any threat to the security of your trade routes, interests etc, that your defence force unable to meet, can be covered by the US.
Smart and creative bludging.
Anecdotally, I was aware NZ SAS hastily borrowed equipment in Afganistan when they arrived. The rumour they performed logistical tasks for German soldiers ( digging latrines ) until they had suitable equipment probably a Furphy. However, can I ask, didn't they borrrow desert patrol vehicles etc of the Americans?
Granted, even socialist Helen has realised, what a superb capability your SAS is, with little relative expense, consequent funding and upgrading has been in place.
Must be the first time a NZ unit has been tier one. Perhaps, it's the independance of operation and nature of their tasks that our SAS is tier 2 in Afganistan. In another thearte, where they had a task and responsibility of keeping Israel out of the war, I find it hard to imagine their resource access not primary.
Nosegear
Promises, promises! What are you going to send in with your generous offer to assist Australia? Despite being isolationist, don't you see a regional skirmish in Asia, a responsibility of New Zealands and not just lending assistance to someone giving Oz the slipper so to speak? Shall we protect your trade routes?
Obviously the minor contingency of piracy in the Malacca a concern, you've offered an Orion, but a more serious skirmish in the region that would close those straits, you could do little in the way of participation.
The RAAF and about 500 other jets are home right now, the battle requires token airpower now but as mentioned, and as discussed in governemnt circles, the RAAF could take on a role in Afganistan.
MOR
We have been waiting with bated breath for your return! After slagging off the former capability of the RNZAF, and rebuking a simple analogy to the relevance of airpower in today's war fighting scenarios, you were going to offer rebuttle quoting Harrier Mate that the RNZAF Skyhawks irrelevant because a Harrier can hover and deliver it's bombs more accurately.
Your silence appreciated!
Dave Martin
Well Dave, you are the first I've come accross who admits the folly.
It's a good, each way bet though, by your socialist government, to secretly commit your troops to a very active combat role in Afganistan, but quietly come accross as Doves.
Hopefully, AQ hasn't noticed and any threat to the security of your trade routes, interests etc, that your defence force unable to meet, can be covered by the US.
Smart and creative bludging.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 12th Oct 2005 at 08:08.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well gnadenburg , seeing as how you asked so nicely...
BTW it would help your cause enormously if you were able to spell and use correct grammar.
More to the point, I never suggested that Harriers had the advantage of delivering weapons from the hover, that isn't a normal weapons delivery method. The advantage that the Harrier has is the ability to operate from unprepared forward air bases.
Anyway... for you and your mate Mr Hanky...
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr Hanky
No, I don't think I will, as you are both wrong.
Unlike you two, I'll give you the links to the information and quote a few selected bits.
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1992/012692.htm
...and so on and so forth...
Gnadenburg
A 206 with a hardpoint could have done the same job.
Oh, please. They found themselves at war with a very small expeditionary force, thousands of miles from home, with very limited maintenance and munitions supplies. The Argies were operating from their home bases.
They still have the capability - the only reason it isn't used is that a) it isn't necessary in that theatre and b) the Americans are being ultra-cautious in Afghanistan.
We don't want, need, or desire involvement in the Philippines. The Americans would be the natural allies for that task.
I don't understand why you just can't seem to understand that a) the Phillippines are not local to us, and b) we do not consider activities there to be a significant risk to us. If you lot do, by all means go and sort it out, but leave us out of it.
BTW it would help your cause enormously if you were able to spell and use correct grammar.
More to the point, I never suggested that Harriers had the advantage of delivering weapons from the hover, that isn't a normal weapons delivery method. The advantage that the Harrier has is the ability to operate from unprepared forward air bases.
Anyway... for you and your mate Mr Hanky...
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr Hanky
No, I don't think I will, as you are both wrong.
Unlike you two, I'll give you the links to the information and quote a few selected bits.
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1992/012692.htm
U.S. Secretly Aided Iraq Against Iran Early In War
The New York Times - January 26, 1992
Secret Is Kept At Gates Hearings
During Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last October on Mr. Gates's nomination as C.I.A. chief, neither Mr., Gates nor any of the other C.I.A. witnesses let on that the U.S.-Iraq intelligence-sharing thought to have begun in December 1984 had actually begun more than two years earlier. Nor did any witness reveal that the Reagan Administration had permitted Iraq's allies in the Middle East to ship American-made arms to Baghdad.
...Washington also "looked the other way." As a former American Ambassador in the region put it, as American-made arms began to flow into Baghdad from Iraq's allies in the Middle East, starting in 1982.
...Jordan and Saudi Arabia sent Iraq small arms and mortars, among other weapons, and Kuwait sold the Iraqis thousands of TOW anti-tank missiles. A former C.I.A .official who worked closely with Mr. Casey recalled that "the Kuwaitis sent lots of money and lots of arms to Iraq, and it was all done with our knowledge." He also acknowledged that by 1982 the Jordanian military was routinely diverting American-made Huey helicopters to Iraq.
...The Reagan Administration had secretly changed policy toward Iran shortly after taking office in 1981, allowing the Israelis, bitter foes of Mr. Hussein, to ship American arms worth several billion dollars to Teheran.
...Since last spring, at least two Congressional subcommittees have been investigating American policy toward the arming of Iraq. They are asking why both the Reagan and Bush Administrations continued military support for Iraq even after the war with Iran.
...It was "U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein," he added.
...Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act.
...The memo read, in part:
Liberalizing export controls on Iraq: We are considering revising present policy to permit virtually all sales of non-munitions list dual use equipment to Iraq... Egyptian tank sales: In the context of recommending ways to improve our relations with Iraq, Egypt has suggested that we provide it additional M-60 tanks beyond those we are now providing under FMS [Foreign Military Sales]. Egypt would use the additional M-60s to replace used Soviet T-63s, which it would sell to Iraq.... EXIM financing: U/S [Under-Secretary of State] Eagleburger has written EXIM director Draper to urge EXIM financing of US exports to and projects in Iraq... Such major EXIM financing could boost Iraq's credit rating, leading to increased commercial financing for Iraq. However, EXIM does not favor involvement in Iraq.
...In February, to induce Iraq to carry out more bombing operations, the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized Saudi Arabia to transfer United States-origin bombs to Iraq and encouraged the Saudis to provide Saddam with British fighter planes as well. Later that month, according to classified reports, Saudi Arabia transferred fifteen hundred MK-84 bombs to Iraq. But, to the dismay of United States officials, Saddam had failed to make full use of the bombs.
...In September, the Defense Department discovered that an Iraqi front company in Cleveland was funneling United States technology to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, but the Bush Administration allowed the company to continue operations -even after the invasion of Kuwait.
The New York Times - January 26, 1992
Secret Is Kept At Gates Hearings
During Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last October on Mr. Gates's nomination as C.I.A. chief, neither Mr., Gates nor any of the other C.I.A. witnesses let on that the U.S.-Iraq intelligence-sharing thought to have begun in December 1984 had actually begun more than two years earlier. Nor did any witness reveal that the Reagan Administration had permitted Iraq's allies in the Middle East to ship American-made arms to Baghdad.
...Washington also "looked the other way." As a former American Ambassador in the region put it, as American-made arms began to flow into Baghdad from Iraq's allies in the Middle East, starting in 1982.
...Jordan and Saudi Arabia sent Iraq small arms and mortars, among other weapons, and Kuwait sold the Iraqis thousands of TOW anti-tank missiles. A former C.I.A .official who worked closely with Mr. Casey recalled that "the Kuwaitis sent lots of money and lots of arms to Iraq, and it was all done with our knowledge." He also acknowledged that by 1982 the Jordanian military was routinely diverting American-made Huey helicopters to Iraq.
...The Reagan Administration had secretly changed policy toward Iran shortly after taking office in 1981, allowing the Israelis, bitter foes of Mr. Hussein, to ship American arms worth several billion dollars to Teheran.
...Since last spring, at least two Congressional subcommittees have been investigating American policy toward the arming of Iraq. They are asking why both the Reagan and Bush Administrations continued military support for Iraq even after the war with Iran.
...It was "U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein," he added.
...Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act.
...The memo read, in part:
Liberalizing export controls on Iraq: We are considering revising present policy to permit virtually all sales of non-munitions list dual use equipment to Iraq... Egyptian tank sales: In the context of recommending ways to improve our relations with Iraq, Egypt has suggested that we provide it additional M-60 tanks beyond those we are now providing under FMS [Foreign Military Sales]. Egypt would use the additional M-60s to replace used Soviet T-63s, which it would sell to Iraq.... EXIM financing: U/S [Under-Secretary of State] Eagleburger has written EXIM director Draper to urge EXIM financing of US exports to and projects in Iraq... Such major EXIM financing could boost Iraq's credit rating, leading to increased commercial financing for Iraq. However, EXIM does not favor involvement in Iraq.
...In February, to induce Iraq to carry out more bombing operations, the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized Saudi Arabia to transfer United States-origin bombs to Iraq and encouraged the Saudis to provide Saddam with British fighter planes as well. Later that month, according to classified reports, Saudi Arabia transferred fifteen hundred MK-84 bombs to Iraq. But, to the dismay of United States officials, Saddam had failed to make full use of the bombs.
...In September, the Defense Department discovered that an Iraqi front company in Cleveland was funneling United States technology to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, but the Bush Administration allowed the company to continue operations -even after the invasion of Kuwait.
Gnadenburg
An RNZAF A4 could have done the same job.
Argentinian A4's found themselves in a total war situation against the Royal Navy.
Harriers - including American examples operated off helicopter carriers in 2001/2002- were never used at remote staging bases.
Those Kiwi A4's would have been handy, as a defence aid assistance programme or gift to the PAF, in their offensive in the Southern Phillipines 18 months ago.
I don't understand why you just can't seem to understand that a) the Phillippines are not local to us, and b) we do not consider activities there to be a significant risk to us. If you lot do, by all means go and sort it out, but leave us out of it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Anywhere I lay my hat...
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB
Not wanting to steal CT 7s thunder, but I think the Kiwi's may have even beaten your chaps into the Desert Shield/Storm.
Possibly as the Kiwis Green Sqn was on exercise in the UK at the time the baloon went up. They were however a bit upset at not being able to come home and gloat to the Black Sqn members first...
So you'll probably find both sides were there fighting it out on the rugby field. Who was tier what, who knows.
As an aside, the bombing speed of a F18 vs an A4 is 10 knots faster....just the F18 gets back to the showers first!
Not wanting to steal CT 7s thunder, but I think the Kiwi's may have even beaten your chaps into the Desert Shield/Storm.
Possibly as the Kiwis Green Sqn was on exercise in the UK at the time the baloon went up. They were however a bit upset at not being able to come home and gloat to the Black Sqn members first...
So you'll probably find both sides were there fighting it out on the rugby field. Who was tier what, who knows.
As an aside, the bombing speed of a F18 vs an A4 is 10 knots faster....just the F18 gets back to the showers first!
Plas Teek
Sorry, but we were talking about the more recent action, not 1991.
MOR
Stop squirming and trying to change the absurd context of your statements.
You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument, you informed us the Gulf War was an undisputable example. It was politely pointed out that Iraqi equipment and tactics-and especially in the context you have used the A4 example as- was predominantly Russian & French.
We all know American foreign policy was for a status quo in the region- a stalemate as such, or inevitable costly defeat to both protagonists- which had limited American hardware find itself supplying both armies clandestinely.
Stating a 206 with a hardpoint could do the job in Afganistan a fair summary of your logic and arguments to date. More impressive would have been, a statement that arming your Orions with air-ground weapons a meaningful contribution to a defence effort.
Belittling the threat faced by Argentinian A4's makes no sense and you have ignored the repeated explaination that hovering and forward bases, have not been neccessary or suitable for a decade worth of air campaigns, making Harrier aircraft similar to other platforms.
Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally. The Americans are treading on egg shells there because of obvious historical sensitivites. You have been fortunate not to lose New Zealanders to Phillipino trained bombmakers, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, that New Zealand will be asked to assist Phillipino police and army in counter-terrorism roles in the future.
I have taken it upon my duty, until Woomera sees fit to moderate, to remind New Zealanders at every opportunity that there bludging is convincing in many areas, none so convincing as defence!
You are a lost nation, since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe, and played only a token effort with the war in the Pacific on your doorstep. Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice, so you leaned toward ANZUS post war, but being the pesky little guys you are, discovered you felt biggest and most important, when you told bigger friends where to go!
Sorry, but we were talking about the more recent action, not 1991.
MOR
Stop squirming and trying to change the absurd context of your statements.
You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument, you informed us the Gulf War was an undisputable example. It was politely pointed out that Iraqi equipment and tactics-and especially in the context you have used the A4 example as- was predominantly Russian & French.
We all know American foreign policy was for a status quo in the region- a stalemate as such, or inevitable costly defeat to both protagonists- which had limited American hardware find itself supplying both armies clandestinely.
Stating a 206 with a hardpoint could do the job in Afganistan a fair summary of your logic and arguments to date. More impressive would have been, a statement that arming your Orions with air-ground weapons a meaningful contribution to a defence effort.
Belittling the threat faced by Argentinian A4's makes no sense and you have ignored the repeated explaination that hovering and forward bases, have not been neccessary or suitable for a decade worth of air campaigns, making Harrier aircraft similar to other platforms.
Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally. The Americans are treading on egg shells there because of obvious historical sensitivites. You have been fortunate not to lose New Zealanders to Phillipino trained bombmakers, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, that New Zealand will be asked to assist Phillipino police and army in counter-terrorism roles in the future.
I have taken it upon my duty, until Woomera sees fit to moderate, to remind New Zealanders at every opportunity that there bludging is convincing in many areas, none so convincing as defence!
You are a lost nation, since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe, and played only a token effort with the war in the Pacific on your doorstep. Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice, so you leaned toward ANZUS post war, but being the pesky little guys you are, discovered you felt biggest and most important, when you told bigger friends where to go!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crickey Gnads, your really reaching aren't you?
*Cough* Socialist? Try Social Democratic. To call New Zealand socialist is like calling Oz or the USA facist. You appear to be quite a paranoid individual. Reds under the bed still bothering you?
And, yes it is a very good strategy. We believe (to a point) in Afghanistan....certain other little follys, we, and much of the world that can't be brought, don't support.
Your really are on a desperate hunt for threats aren't you. And on our side of the fence, agressive posturing by certain other apparently allied nations is every bit as dangerous as Al Quaida.
You really have no knowledge of history do you, even with your apparent interest in wars.
No, the US seems to be doing a very good job at getting a military presense in the Phillippines, quite against the Philippine constitution. Treading on eggshells? The VFA is for the benefit of the US only.
I salute you, sir!
True colours and ignorance shining right through there. Please, don't stop. You have become comical!
It's a good, each way bet though, by your socialist government, to secretly commit your troops to a very active combat role in Afganistan, but quietly come accross as Doves.
And, yes it is a very good strategy. We believe (to a point) in Afghanistan....certain other little follys, we, and much of the world that can't be brought, don't support.
Hopefully, AQ hasn't noticed and any threat to the security of your trade routes, interests etc, that your defence force unable to meet, can be covered by the US.
You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument,
Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally. The Americans are treading on egg shells there because of obvious historical sensitivites.
I have taken it upon my duty, until Woomera sees fit to moderate, to remind New Zealanders at every opportunity that there bludging is convincing in many areas, none so convincing as defence!
since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe, and played only a token effort with the war in the Pacific on your doorstep. Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice, so you leaned toward ANZUS post war, but being the pesky little guys you are, discovered you felt biggest and most important, when you told bigger friends where to go!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg
It really is like trying to nail jello to the wall with you, isn't it?
Firstly, under existing treaties it was the US, and not NZ, who effectively decided where the A4s could be sold. It was never our choice. Note the way they stopped the Swiss selling old F-5s to a nation they didn't approve of. All a matter of record.
Secondly, equipment and tactics doesn't only include aircraft and tanks. If you bother to read the stuff I quoted, you will discover that a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades. The air force never really came out to play, and the tanks were quickly disposed of.
No, it wasn't. The Americans favoured the Iraqis as a) they were extremely concerned that Iran may gain control of the area, and b) Saddam was their friend (at the time).
Irony not something you understand too well, is it? 
And geopolitics is clearly not yours. Let me help you then. Question: who has the most to gain from a military presence in the Phillippines, the USA or New Zealand? Pretty easy, really. But wait - isn't one of those two countries already militarily active in the Phillippines? Why, yes...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/1792591.stm
Next...
Yes, we have been fortunate not to lose any to attacks by rabid West African Swallows as well... talk about a stretch!
Well, if we are lost, I don't ever want to be found! I certainly never want our country to degenerate to the levels seen in the West Island...
[QUOTE]since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe[/QUOTE
Oh no we didn't. We were asked for help, and we gave it. The European theatre was always more important than the Pacific in any case, if you bother to look at the big picture. We did what we were asked to do. Just like the Aussies, really.
Yes, they were so ungrateful that they gave NZ nearly thirty years of unfettered, protected access to UK markets... they must have really hated us...
I know that in your dark little world, armed forces are the only external indicators of the health of a relationship. Fortunately for us, trade is a much more important indicator, and on that basis we are very good friends indeed!
Surely you can do better...
It really is like trying to nail jello to the wall with you, isn't it?
You stated that offloading A4's to a foreign power, which you were happy to do as a trade in for F16's when it suited, would risk having that hardware and tactics used against you in the future. To add credence to this preposterous argument, you informed us the Gulf War was an undisputable example. It was politely pointed out that Iraqi equipment and tactics-and especially in the context you have used the A4 example as- was predominantly Russian & French.
Secondly, equipment and tactics doesn't only include aircraft and tanks. If you bother to read the stuff I quoted, you will discover that a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades. The air force never really came out to play, and the tanks were quickly disposed of.
We all know American foreign policy was for a status quo in the region- a stalemate as such, or inevitable costly defeat to both protagonists- which had limited American hardware find itself supplying both armies clandestinely.
Stating a 206 with a hardpoint could do the job in Afganistan a fair summary of your logic and arguments to date.
Foreign affairs not your strongpoint as you reference America being the suitable Phillipino ally.
American and Philippine military forces have launched joint exercises which Washington says signal a new phase in the war on international terrorism. The exercises, which will eventually involve 650 US troops, including special forces, are being staged close to the stronghold of the rebel Abu Sayyaf, a group which the US says has links to Osama Bin Laden.
Next...
You have been fortunate not to lose New Zealanders to Phillipino trained bombmakers
You are a lost nation
[QUOTE]since WW2 when you over committed your resources to Europe[/QUOTE
Oh no we didn't. We were asked for help, and we gave it. The European theatre was always more important than the Pacific in any case, if you bother to look at the big picture. We did what we were asked to do. Just like the Aussies, really.
Britain was ungrateful at your sacrifice
when you told bigger friends where to go!
Surely you can do better...
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, just to continue, since I enjoy banging my head against a brick wall:
As far as I can tell (after labouring through about 50 lines of impressive-looking text) your examples, of great consequence, are:
TOW missiles - didn't figure in '91
Huey helicopters - likewise
Howitzers - if there were any left in '91 amidst the vast majority of Russian artillery, they didn't do much
Mk 84 bombs - not used in '91, if they were even still in the inventory (besides which, their rather large joke of an air force had Russian and French ordnance to go with their Russian and French warplanes)
And that's pretty much it. We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence, but to continue the head-banging:
M-60s - see howitzers. Vast amounts of Russian armour about the place, not much in the way of M-60s
British fighters - what British fighters exactly?
The nuclear dealings were no doubt very naughty, but I think you'll find they weren't used in the invasion of Kuwait.
Yes, there's ample evidence of dodgy stuff going on - I said as much myself. But nothing you've stated supports the idea that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics, thus threatening a major source of US oil supplies. Killed as many Americans as they could using the same weapons' because it is b0ll0cks. You are wrong. Still.
Now you could go and cut & paste some more impressive-looking text which totally fails to support your original contention, thereby continuing to demonstrate that you're wrong, or we could just move on from what is becoming a rather dull side-issue.
a lot of the assistance the US rendered to Iraq was of more consequence than their joke of an air force, and their tank brigades
TOW missiles - didn't figure in '91
Huey helicopters - likewise
Howitzers - if there were any left in '91 amidst the vast majority of Russian artillery, they didn't do much
Mk 84 bombs - not used in '91, if they were even still in the inventory (besides which, their rather large joke of an air force had Russian and French ordnance to go with their Russian and French warplanes)
And that's pretty much it. We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence, but to continue the head-banging:
M-60s - see howitzers. Vast amounts of Russian armour about the place, not much in the way of M-60s
British fighters - what British fighters exactly?
The nuclear dealings were no doubt very naughty, but I think you'll find they weren't used in the invasion of Kuwait.
Yes, there's ample evidence of dodgy stuff going on - I said as much myself. But nothing you've stated supports the idea that Iraq 'invaded Kuwait using US-made weapons and tactics, thus threatening a major source of US oil supplies. Killed as many Americans as they could using the same weapons' because it is b0ll0cks. You are wrong. Still.
Now you could go and cut & paste some more impressive-looking text which totally fails to support your original contention, thereby continuing to demonstrate that you're wrong, or we could just move on from what is becoming a rather dull side-issue.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs to? It is very simple.
Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself. Precisely what weapons, how many etc is irrelevant as I never got into those specifics. However, what is clear from the (ongoing) investigations is that there is a lot that we don't know, so the real levels of US weapons used by Saddam are still a moot point.
And where did I say that Saddam had British flighters?
If the Iraqis had hurled a single US-made hand grenade, my original statement would still be true.
You can go back to that intimate relationship you seem to have with a brick wall now, it certainly explains some of the stuff you post...
Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself. Precisely what weapons, how many etc is irrelevant as I never got into those specifics. However, what is clear from the (ongoing) investigations is that there is a lot that we don't know, so the real levels of US weapons used by Saddam are still a moot point.
And where did I say that Saddam had British flighters?
If the Iraqis had hurled a single US-made hand grenade, my original statement would still be true.
You can go back to that intimate relationship you seem to have with a brick wall now, it certainly explains some of the stuff you post...
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if we're going to be silly -
Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters?
'Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself.' No I didn't, actually, not in the context of the first Gulf War. Try exercising some basic comprehension before getting so worked up.
As for your 'single grenade' argument, it merely demonstrates a continuing ability to be pedantic without making a meaningful point.
Ferschrissakes enough already. Boring.
Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters?
'Did the Iraqis use weapons and tactics from the US? They did, you admit so yourself.' No I didn't, actually, not in the context of the first Gulf War. Try exercising some basic comprehension before getting so worked up.
As for your 'single grenade' argument, it merely demonstrates a continuing ability to be pedantic without making a meaningful point.
Ferschrissakes enough already. Boring.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have a learning disability here?
"Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters? "
1-0 to MOR I think...
"Where did I say you said Saddam had British fighters? "
We could ignore your M-60 tanks and British fighters since you imply yourself they were of little consequence
Last edited by Raw Data; 12th Oct 2005 at 16:49.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS.
From MOR
MOR brings them into the discussion. He doesn't specifically say Saddam had them. Nor do I specifically say he does.
Comprende? Talk about learning disabilities
From MOR
...In February, to induce Iraq to carry out more bombing operations, the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized Saudi Arabia to transfer United States-origin bombs to Iraq and encouraged the Saudis to provide Saddam with British fighter planes as well.
Comprende? Talk about learning disabilities
Am I going to be out of line here by asking have we actually sold our jets yet? Or was that issue cleared up three or four pages ago? 
I may have forgotten with everything else that has been said besides that....
I may have forgotten with everything else that has been said besides that....
