The Opposites Game

The Opposites Game: All the Strangeness of Our American World in One Article

Monday 26 July 2010
Tom Engelhardt

ARMING AFGHANISTAN WITH RUSSIAN Mi-17 TRANSPORT HELICOPTERS TO LATER USE THEM, IN COVERT OPS?

Have you ever thought about just how strange this country's version of normal truly is?

state and city governments are having a hard time finding the money just to pay teachers or the police. The Pentagon, on the other hand, hasn't hesitated to use at least $25-27 billion to "train" and "mentor" the Afghan military and police

"The U.S. government is snapping up Russian-made helicopters to form the core of Afghanistan's fledgling air force, a strategy that is drawing flak from members of Congress who want to force the Afghans to fly American choppers instead."

To be an Afghan air force pilot, you must know English -- "the official language of the cockpit," Whitlock assures us (even if to fly Russian helicopters). As he points out, however, the trainees, mostly illiterate, take two to five years simply to learn the language.

Taliban haven't had tens of billions of dollars in foreign training funds; they haven't had years of advice from the best U.S. and NATO advisors that money can buy; they haven't had private contractors like DynCorp teaching them how to fight and police, and strangely enough, they seem to have no problem fighting.

If you were of a conspiratorial mind, you might almost think that the Pentagon preferred not to create an effective Afghan air force

Just imagine a similar news item coming out of another country[:] Iranian special forces teams are scouring the planet for old American Chinook helicopters so they can be well "cloaked" in planned future forays into Afghanistan[.]

I think the man makes a lot of good points about the absurd nature of the nation building and military building the US is engaged in the Middle East and Afghanistan in particular. He makes a real mockery of the Afghani Helicopter program.

Do you think nation building in Afghanistan serves the US people? Or multinational interests?

Do you think the goal is really to help "Afghanistan" to get on its feet? Or is it to subjugate the Afghani People to a unwanted and resisted New World Order?

and Englehart's implied big question:

Do you think the US/TPTB/Corporate Interests are ARMING AFGHANISTAN WITH RUSSIAN Mi-17 TRANSPORT HELICOPTERS TO LATER USE THEM, via an installed Afghan puppet government, IN COVERT OPS by Xe or Special Forces, rather than the overt mission of arming the Afghan government with transport helicopters?

I am,

Sri Oracle

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Sri Oracle]

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

To be an Afghan air force pilot, you must know English -- "the official language of the cockpit," Whitlock assures us (even if to fly Russian helicopters). As he points out, however, the trainees, mostly illiterate, take two to five years simply to learn the language.

Speaking English for Pilots is nothing new. ATC and Pilots need to learn the basics.

Air traffic controller

Although local languages are sometimes used in ATC communications, the default language of aviation worldwide is English. Controllers who do not speak this as a first language are generally expected to show a certain minimum level of competency with the language.

They Also Trained the Iraqi Air force.
Airmen help future Iraqi pilots learn to speak English

When the future pilots begin flying internationally, being able to communicate in this language will be a necessity as the worldwide language for aviation is English, said Capt. Brian Ravak, chief of English language training at Camp Taji who is deployed from Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Speaking English for Pilots is nothing new. ATC and Pilots need to learn the basics.

Although local languages are sometimes used in ATC communications, the default language of aviation worldwide is English. Controllers who do not speak this as a first language are generally expected to show a certain minimum level of competency with the language.

Do eastern nations like China and Vietnam follow this, what about South America where spanish is common?

I understood the rules of international ATC comm to be:

www.icao.int...

Do the language provisions reduce the need to use standardized phraseology?

Absolutely not! In fact, the language provisions adopted in November 2003 reinforce the case for the use of standardized phraseology (See Annex 10, Volume II, paragraph 5.1.1.1). Pilots and controllers shall use ICAO standardized phraseology in all situations for which it has been specified and resort to plain language in radiotelephony communications only when standardized phraseology cannot serve an intended transmission.

but standardized phraseology has only a limited relationship to 2-5 years of English study. We're talking about a limited list of basic terms like "heading" "mayday" "flight number" etc.

In which languages does a licence holder need to demonstrate proficiency?
[]
Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate language proficiency in either English OR the language used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations serving designated airports and routes used by international air services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.

So why would an independent state military pilot NEED to be proficient in English? Are all of China's air force pilots proficient in English?





[edit on 30-7-2010 by Sri Oracle]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


Yes all of China's, Vietnamese etc. Pilots that fly international flights must have a basic understanding of English, A large percentage of military pilots eventually go on into careers in the civilian aviation industry.

It's in their best interest to know English




[edit on 30-7-2010 by SLAYER69]