ok frist

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

Well, that’s just interesting, isn’t it? Just interesting.

More on CRAF. Could someone explain the concern? This isn’t a new issue. Has something changed or been newly disclosed that shouldn’t be happening under CRAF? Or is the concern that non-US carriers are involved? Again, NZ is part of the ANZUS alliance. Very unclear what the concern is with the NZ commercial fleet.

Why is commercial carrier Air New Zealand — rather than the Royal New Zealand Air Force– flying Australian and US combat troops to staging areas for the Iraq war?

Because they’re really being staged for the invasion of Iran so it has to be done under the radar.

QANTAS flew Aussie troops to & from Vietnam…

Since I don’t know diddly squat about these matters, can someone sum it up for me? Wonderings comment makes sense.

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The point that you either missed if you read the article, or just didn’t read the article before questioning, is that the head of the New Zealand government is claiming she didn’t know this was happening. Kiwis are not supportive of the occupation in Iraq and apparently it was thought that they could sneak past them using commercial airlines.

I…Uhhh…We….Ummm, You See…Uhhhh…Ummmmm…It’s Like This…Uhhhhh…

OK, who blabbed??? You, The Decider just ain’t gonna like this! Nor will Lord Vader Cheney! Someone’s in for a galactic can o’ whoopass for letting this juicy bit of news get out!

Here’s a sample support sytemM which integrates between CRAF and New Zealand Air.

Is someone suggesting the opposite: That there be no integration system; and that equipment from the US not be transported on any other system but American military? The US military does not have enough DoD-owned assets to conduct warfare. it relies on civilian reserve transportation systems to conduct battlefield support. Unclear what the concern is with New Zealand and the US. It’s well established that NZ is a US ally; and that US DoD funds have been expended to permit transfer of US assets into NZ commercial aircraft.

Nicole Belle @ 8:

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The point that you either missed if you read the article, or just didn’t read the article before questioning, is that the head of the New Zealand government is claiming she didn’t know this was happening. Kiwis are not supportive of the occupation in Iraq and apparently it was thought that they could sneak past them using commercial airlines.

OK. So, the issue isn’t that it’s “secret” only that despite long-standing US-NZ agreements to integrate US troops into NZ commercial equipment, the leadership isn’t aware of this. The issue isn’t that the NZ troops are or are not “secretly” doing anything; but that the world now knows the NZ government is doing something that the US and NZ have long been doing.

Thank you for the clarification.

Nicole Belle @ 8:

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The point that you either missed if you read the article, or just didn’t read the article before questioning, is that the head of the New Zealand government is claiming she didn’t know this was happening. Kiwis are not supportive of the occupation in Iraq and apparently it was thought that they could sneak past them using commercial airlines.

Kind of like the UK saying, “we didn’t know about rendition”? Is that he issue: Their denial doesn’t appear plausible given the extensive US-NZ coordination?

I think the real issue is the US doesn’t ahve enough commercial aircraft to do the job. It has to depend on other nations. The issue appears to be the NZ government isn’t openly discussing the scope of its involvement.

Or am I misssing something else?

Wondering Says:
“It’s well established that NZ is a US ally”

And vice-versa?
NZ does not allow US nuclear warships in their waters.
New Zealand troops left Iraq in September 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ce_in_Iraq

Right. I think the concern trolls are missing (or throwing) the scent.

The issue here is that the NZ airline is some 78% government owned, they claimed they didn’t know, when it would need to be cleared through those government holdings in the first place for something of this scale to happen. Why lie about it? Some what because the NZ public is not very supportive of the war, and there’s hints that the staging going on as a result of these flights may not have anything to do with the current acceptable GWOT theaters.

If I missed something or overstepped, feel free to correct. Still investigating…

Nicole Belle @ 8:

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The point that you either missed if you read the article, or just didn’t read the article before questioning, is that the head of the New Zealand government is claiming she didn’t know this was happening. Kiwis are not supportive of the occupation in Iraq and apparently it was thought that they could sneak past them using commercial airlines.

As to claims that the Kiwis don’t support the war in Iraq, that may be an issue in 2007; but the NZ government has supported the US.

YBNurmal @ 14:

Wondering Says:
“It’s well established that NZ is a US ally”

And vice-versa?
NZ does not allow US nuclear warships in their waters.
New Zealand troops left Iraq in September 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ce_in_Iraq

But the issue with NZ was troop involvement.

“But committing New Zealand troops overseas is something that is a very serious issue and it is not something we are going to do in a light-handed manner.”Details

Troops in harms way are one thing. CRAF is something different.

The issue appears to be: Why would NZ government, with its involvement with CRAF, have an interest in not publicly saying, “Yes, we’re involved as a US ally. But there are no NZ troops on the ground.”

Glad to see Nonny Mouse’s post.
Am watching NZ carefully as my “baby” is off to work there in January.

I’m quite surprised that NZ sent troops to Iraq. I thought that after PM Helen Clark had refused to host a US base, and refused to allow nuclear subs in NZ waters, and after her 2003 remark that had Gore been president the US would not have invaded Iraq, this sort of thing would not happen. What the hell is in it for the airline and the government? The US can’t possibly be overpaying for these flights, can they?

Helen Clark has a record of telling the US to piss-off. I’m shocked she didn’t in this case.

Here’s the NZ govt statement:

Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and we did not participate in the war there. We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003.

The issue for the public: Is “NZ using CRAF-related resources” something that would mean “not participating”? Depends on how you define “participate”. Ground combat is participation; and support roles is “not participating”? I agree, the leadership in NZ would be in a position to know whether NZ aircraft were or were not being used under CRAF to transfer US troops.

Conversely, if the NZ government is “lying” about involvement with the CRAF, perhaps their real goal is to hide other cooperating with the US on other matters. Question becomes: Is NZ involved with rendition in permitting overflights? Recall the Cheney visit to Australia. Is there a back-up detention point in Australia and New Zealand now that E. European centers were found to violate Geneva?

Link for this quote: Wondering @ 20:

Here’s the NZ govt statement:

Iraq did not meet our criteria for intervention in 2003 and we did not participate in the war there. We did, for one year, send New Zealand Defence Force engineers to do civilian reconstruction work, believing that was consistent with the United Nations mandate established in the course of 2003.

The issue for the public: Is “NZ using CRAF-related resources” something that would mean “not participating”? Depends on how you define “participate”. Ground combat is participation; and support roles is “not participating”? I agree, the leadership in NZ would be in a position to know whether NZ aircraft were or were not being used under CRAF to transfer US troops.

Conversely, if the NZ government is “lying” about involvement with the CRAF, perhaps their real goal is to hide other cooperating with the US on other matters. Question becomes: Is NZ involved with rendition in permitting overflights? Recall the Cheney visit to Australia. Is there a back-up detention point in Australia and New Zealand now that E. European centers were found to violate Geneva?

Having been in the Army during the first gulf war I rode on planes that were from Kuwati Air to Aer Lingus, they were all charters, this to me isnt that big, until the PM of NZ lied about it. The chartering of jets to wierd places is a well know fact in the military, look at the fact that the US govt is using the largest plane in the world to transport oversized pckgs to Iraq, the plane is owned by the Russian Air Force. The best(worst) use of a charter I have heard about was from Africa; there is a guy who used to be Spentnaz(?), Russian special forces, who runs guns, and everything else, in Africa. There is a picture of all these guns belted into the seats with ammo and all the other crap, move outside the plane, and thats right, it is the Seattle Supersonics logo on the fin of the plane, so the owners of the plane will charter to anybody.

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The unprecedented levels of secrecy are a cause for “concern”. Private and commercial jets were also used in “extraordinary rendition” and for the boosh international gulag system.

But why are you so “concerned” with the “concern” at C&L? hmmmm?

Looks like the people of NZ have had their trust betrayed. My advice to them is to kick every guilty party out of office, lest they end up in the sorry state that we in the US now occupy. Best to nip the dirtbags in the bud, before they can destroy your entire civilization.

Dhalgren @ 19:

I’m quite surprised that NZ sent troops to Iraq. I thought that after PM Helen Clark had refused to host a US base, and refused to allow nuclear subs in NZ waters, and after her 2003 remark that had Gore been president the US would not have invaded Iraq, this sort of thing would not happen. What the hell is in it for the airline and the government? The US can’t possibly be overpaying for these flights, can they?

Helen Clark has a record of telling the US to piss-off. I’m shocked she didn’t in this case.

Maybe people with huge vested interests either persuaded Helen or they lied to her.

Loook at the original C&L question: The issue wasn’t primarily that NZ was or wasn’t involved; but that the NZ civilian carriers were involved.

Why is commercial carrier Air New Zealand — rather than the Royal New Zealand Air Force– flying Australian and US combat troops to staging areas for the Iraq war?

Does this mean it would have been “OK” if the NZ military was doing this? Sounds like the point of concern is drifting from the original C&L point.

Wondering @ 13:

I think the real issue is the US doesn’t ahve enough commercial aircraft to do the job. It has to depend on other nations. The issue appears to be the NZ government isn’t openly discussing the scope of its involvement.

Or am I misssing something else?

the real issue is secrecy. this activity had to be “discovered”!

The concern is that getting caught supporting GWB’s Irak adventure in NZ will get you un-elected before lunchtime, but the pressure from the U.S (in term of a free trade deal carrot) means that out M.P’s have to sneak around like this so the can keep the Yanks happy, while keeping the voters at home happy.

Makes you wonder how many of the “coalition of the willing” where bullied into going along with the Yanks in the first place.

BaScOmBe @ 23:

Wondering @ 2:

Commercial transportation of combat troops is not unusual. There is something called the Civil Reserve Air Fleet/Transportation system. With all due respect to C&L, would appreciate why there is this “concern” with commerical use of aircraft for combat-support in transporting troops. This is not unusual. Commercial carriers were used during Desert Storm. Commercial ships were used to transport troops during WWII.

The unprecedented levels of secrecy are a cause for “concern”. Private and commercial jets were also used in “extraordinary rendition” and for the boosh international gulag system.

But why are you so “concerned” with the “concern” at C&L? hmmmm?

LOL.

Why are you “concerned” about attempting to respond to the original C&L question:

Why is commercial carrier Air New Zealand — rather than the Royal New Zealand Air Force– flying Australian and US combat troops to staging areas for the Iraq war?

The concern wasn’t whether NZ was or wasn’t involved, but that civilian, not military, aircraft were used. It’s not unusual for civilian aircraft to be used. Whether the NZ govt lied about it was outside the C&L original question. The issue has changed to something else. Called a moving argument. That’s the concern.

I think the next step is New Zealand will invade the United States.

I knew we couldn’t trust those kiwi’s.

I was unaware that concern had to be regulated to the guidelines of the original C&L statement.

Christ, here it is again. People making a bigger stink about the non-issue to ignore the actual issue. This is a discussion, not a high school debate competition.

Errr… This is a complete non story.

What did the PM of NZ know about the flights and when did she know it, that seems to be the question.

Jeff @ 32:

Errr… This is a complete non story.

It may very well be, or it could be the Iran-contra of NZ.

A story is not a non-story of you cannot immediately grasp the concept.

4 Wondering Says: Again, NZ is part of the ANZUS alliance.

Not entirely: See “New Zealand bans nuclear ships”, “The United States suspends ANZUS obligations to New Zealand”, “The Alliance today”.

While there have been signs of the nuclear dispute between the US and NZ thawing out, pressure from the United States increased in 2006 with U.S. trade officials linking the repeal of the ban of American nuclear ships from New Zealand’s ports to a potential free trade agreement between the two countries.

That said, we have forces in Afghanistan, but the New Zealand military is largely geared to peacekeeping roles these days, and while there are doubtless some special forces personnel there, most are involved in such work as disposing of unexploded ordnance.

24 Paul Says: Looks like the people of NZ have had their trust betrayed. My advice to them is to kick every guilty party out of office, lest they end up in the sorry state that we in the US now occupy.

We’re in a Lesser Evil situation there: a National-led government would represent a lurch to the right. Clark’s a triangulator, which can be hugely frustrating, but alternative is a beeline in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, people who don’t remember the 80s are voting now…

Paul, I’m sure people were saying the same sorts of things in the US in 2000, and look where that’s led.

Still learning blog-speak.

What is a concern troll?

Someone who’s concerned about and living under a bridge?

Because airlines need the oil we’re gonna take outta Iraq.

Mentis Fugit @ 36 nailed it: Clark’s nominally leftist party is hanging on to power in NZ by its fingernails - if she’s seen as co-operating with the Iraq war effort, it’s not going to go down well with voters. Thus the big melodrama over ‘not knowing’ Air New Zealand was flying troops into staging areas for the war, and accusing ANZ of doing something nefarious in secret.

Which they weren’t.

So when ANZ could prove they had obtained government approval, Clark then couldn’t sacrifice a member of her government and sack him, so she shrugged it off to a ‘bad-hair day’.

Most Kiwis were unaware of these not-so-secret ’secret’ flights, until Clark responded to an Investigate article on it by trying to scapegoat the airline. An airline 78% owned by the NZ government, where flights of this nature have to be approved, by the government. So while Clark is busily posturing as anti-war, she’s nothing of the kind.

And that’s the real scandal.

Nobody has gone on record saying ANZ made these flights under pressure from the Bush Adminstration. Even though 78% owned by the government, it seems ANZ is struggling financially and can use all the business they can get, especially charter flights for which they are probably paid handsomely.

nonny mouse,

Well said and thought at per the norm for you, good to hear from the wilds of the UK once more.

VietVet8666 @ 37:

‘A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one his/her sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....cern_troll

Er, thanks, Jeff… except I’m not IN the wilds of the UK anymore. I’m now living in the suburban wastelands on the outskirts of the City of Sails, the capital of Kiwiland.

And the government’s current faux pas notwithstanding, New Zealand in general is abso-frickin-lutely fabulous. Best decision I ever made.

Air New Zealand recently acquired 25% of Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd. Guess who still owns 50% of Ansett? Give up. It’s News Corp headed by Rupert Murdoch (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....A963958260).