Mali heating up

reply to post by tdk84


The RAF has one of the largest fleets of all non-US operators (even though there are only a handful that operate it), so getting a spare airborne in less than a couple of hours would be pretty easy, as long as they have one fueled. Even if they don't, they can have a spare airborne in three hours or so.

They were only delayed 24 hours before the same aircraft departed on the mission.

reply to post by Krono


Because there are troops from several other African nations heading to Mali to help. That means that a lot of people in the region can get dragged into this, and it could get uglier fast.

The RAF will be using the one C-17 to fly missions for a few days, the CAF has offered a C-17 for a week, to assist the people of Mali, and the RAF will be offering other assets to help with intel gathering.

It's believed the following aircraft will be involved:

Sentinel R1 ASTOR, which performed beautifully in Libya. It has a similar mission to the USAF E-8 J-STARS with a Dual Mode Radar (DMR) which provides Synthetic Aperature Radar (SAR) modes, as well as Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI), which allows them to track vehicles and other targets on the ground.



The C-17s from the RAF and Canadian Air Force. Capable of carrying tanks helicopters and other cargo too large for the C-160 and C-130 of the French Air Force.



MQ-9 Reaper, the armed version of the MQ-1 Predator, operated by 13 Squadron from Waddington.




Meanwhile the French Air Force has deployed two Mirage F-1CR aircraft to Bamako for quicker response times, and to ease pressure on their tankers. The US is still deciding on what assets to send to assist in the operations.

The US is still deciding on what assets to send to assist in the operations.

Cargo Planes to ferry troops, Air re-fueling, Drones and other stuff there not naming (and maybe won't) Lots of info will be dribbling out soon.

reply to post by RUFFREADY


The U-28 is an ELINT aircraft used by the SF community, so those will be involved, as they're already there. Possibly M-28s for ferrying French troops, as well as the rest that I named.

Wonder how long will it takes before someone decides to arm those rebels with much needed weapons against armours and flying machines.

reply to post by CottonwoodStormy


That is what I have also heard from some others from your country. The west uses and abuses the Al Qaida term because it's a good button pusher.... but that doesn't eliminate the fact that these extremists are a real danger to the people!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

The US role is currently planned for intelligence sharing, and possibly tanker/airlift support and that's it from what I've heard so far. No boots on the ground, and the intel units are already operating in the area.

Yeah, just like Lybia, right?

Oh wait, the Lybians are in Mali now, too.

Here is a good article on the Mali invasion:

"After the FUKUS Axis created the situation in Mali by their illegal attack against Libya, after the FUKUS Axis installed terrorists in power in Libya, after the FUKUS Axis sent terrorists into Syria and then recognized them as the legitimate Government, we have the FUKUS Axis on an imperialist adventure in Mali. Nice one. The FUKUS Axis (France, UK, US) is now in Mali fighting what it describes as "Islamist terrorists", you know, the ones it cavorted with in Libya, in an illegal war breaching the conditions of UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) in which a spectacular mission creep by the UK and France (mainly) rendered the word of London and Paris lower and less trustworthy than a heroin addict desperate for a fix."

The link to the whole article is below:

Mali: FUKUS Axis in action again
english.pravda.ru...

reply to post by Libertygal


The US said they were going to keep troops off the ground in Libya, not that they were limiting their role to intel and airlift. They also said that NATO would take the lead on that mission, and they did.

Originally posted by trysts
rendered the word of Pravda lower and less trustworthy than a heroin addict desperate for a fix."

There, fixed it. Pravda is one of those fun sources that is always good for an interesting read, but not much more than that.

But what should we do, just let the Malian government fall? They are one of the friendly nations to the US and EU, so we should let that be replaced by an unfriendly government? Sit back and do nothing?

Originally posted by Bluesma
*slaps head* I can't believe that offensive comment up above, jezus.

Whether or not Mali "deserves" to be saved, or has some sort of richess to profit from (it does), letting the radicall Islamics take over the world bit by bit would eventually have a very big impact on us all.

i agree, being left of center, i still radically oppose islamic culture or laws, as i think most liberals do, regardless of the few loud mouths on the left that cry "kum-by-yah" and "let's try and get along with these people"
they are out to destroy western culture and western civilization, and will kill anyone that gets in their way...they write about it in their religous books, they write about it in their other publications, they preach it in their churches, they preach it in their childrens schools, they voice it out loud on their radio and TV channels, they preach it on the internet, and they will even tell you in person, if you press them on it.
why any westerner would be against fighting these people is beyond reason. they DO NOT care about you or your way of life, period.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by trysts
rendered the word of Pravda lower and less trustworthy than a heroin addict desperate for a fix."

There, fixed it. Pravda is one of those fun sources that is always good for an interesting read, but not much more than that.

But what should we do, just let the Malian government fall? They are one of the friendly nations to the US and EU, so we should let that be replaced by an unfriendly government? Sit back and do nothing?

As the article states, the U.S. causes much, much, much, much more harm than good. The U.S. never has good intentions for the people of foreign lands. It has a mobster mentality of sending in people to vandalize a shop, then going up to the shop owner demanding protection money.

reply to post by trysts


Well hell, then let's just let the government fall, and ignore the world like most people wanted to do after WWI. Since all we do is harm, and very little good, the rest of the world doesn't need us, so let's just ignore them.

France has asked Denmark for logistical support as well. They are considering adding a C-130 to the airlift operations to assist.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Yes, it would be a good idea to have the U.S. stay out of other countries. One does not call on a proven serial killer to rescue them.

reply to post by trysts


Fine, then when they get hammered by a natural disaster and beg us for assistance, we'll tell them "sorry, you wanted us to stay out, so we're staying out." And when they beg us for help on defense, we'll tell them to piss off, they didn't want us around. It kills me how everyone bad mouths the US, but then begs for help, or hammers us for not sending enough help when they need it. Screw the world then, we'll stay home and let it rot.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, the poor under-appreciated U.S. government. They've been responsible for millions of deaths from Vietnam to Iraq to Honduras, and all they want to do is help. What will the world do without the U.S. "helping" it? Maybe democratically elected governments throughout the world will not be overthrown? Maybe children will be able to grow up with all their limbs? Maybe people would be able to live in a home instead of rubble? Maybe the world would be a better place?

reply to post by trysts


I never said the US Gov't was innocent, or not responsible for a lot of things. But if people want us gone, then we should stay gone, and not help out under any circumstances. It's hypocracy to say that the US is evil, and then turn around and beg us for help because you just had a natural disaster, or someone is threatening your way of life. But you're right, and Pravda (which is as good a source as Sorcha Faal) is right, and the world would be better if the US just disappeared. Let's start breaking it up now.

If the US wasn't here, then other countries would do the same thing. You seriously think that the US is solely responsible for all the evil in the world?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by trysts

 

Fine, then when they get hammered by a natural disaster and beg us for assistance, we'll tell them "sorry, you wanted us to stay out, so we're staying out." And when they beg us for help on defense, we'll tell them to piss off, they didn't want us around. It kills me how everyone bad mouths the US, but then begs for help, or hammers us for not sending enough help when they need it. Screw the world then, we'll stay home and let it rot.

Who is going to rot exactly?

Ireland was offered U.S. military aid in exchange for letting you guys have a military base. We refused, and we are doing alright.

Most of these world conflicts are started by the U.S. to further their oil-agenda, not to help people.

You think the Govt. that thought of Operation Northwoods to bomb the living crap out of Cuba cares about the little guys? You think the same nation that arrests people for copying movies from the internet, but let's bankers cause world recessions and get off scot-free, cares about the Africans, Europeans, S. Americans or ever the N. Americans?

Fat chance, lol.