Posted on 08/02/2006 2:51:27 AM PDT by Republicain
US military flights carrying bombs to Israel will no longer use any civilian airports in the UK, the BBC has learnt.
The decision follows criticism of the use of Prestwick Airport, near Glasgow, to refuel flights suspected of carrying bombs to Israel.
It has emerged that in future only military airfields will be used.
The decision was reached after protests at the airport and discussions between various government departments, led by the Foreign Office.
US flights to Israel used RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk rather than Prestwick airport last weekend, prompting protests from about 30 peace campaigners at the military base.
BBC2's Newsnight has revealed that a total six aircraft carrying military supplies for Israel passed through UK airports over the weekend, one of them using RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.
The programme said Defence Secretary Des Browne offered the use of the bases after Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander protested to Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett about Prestwick being used.
BBC News understands that Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett last week pressed for all US flights through the UK to be suspended while hostilities in Lebanon continued.
But her concerns were rejected by Downing Street.
'Not happy'
The latest move means the planes will at least not pass through civilian airports any longer.
Mrs Beckett last week opened up a rare public rift with the Americans when she said she was "not happy" because it appeared the US planes at Prestwick had not followed correct procedures for transporting hazardous materials.
She raised the issue with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and threatened to make a formal protest if the reports proved to be true.
Her worries were seized on by government critics as evidence that the US was taking British support for granted.
But the White House dismissed Mrs Beckett's protest, saying the Department of Defense believed the "paperwork" had been in order.
Labour MP Mohammed Sarwar said the UK had showed itself to be "partisan" in allowing its airports to be used by the US planes.
"In my view, we are partisan in this conflict when we are allowing British airports to be used for logistics for Israel and we are not honest brokers any more and our policy towards Lebanon is biased and I think we have severely damaged our reputation in the international community," he said.
"prompting protests from about 30 peace campaigners at the military base."
30 put the fear of God into them
in the UK mind, those 30 are more important than the lives of 6 million
"...has learnt"? Learnt?? Is that a word? Isn't it supposed to be "learned", as in:
"...any civilian airports in the UK, the BBC has learned."
At some point the UK will have to choose between the real world and the nuthouse.
That 'learnt' stuff is a UK thing.
In British, Australian, and NZ English, both learnt and learned are correct spellings while in American English only learned is acceptable.
Good to hear. Hang in there...
Thanks for the heads-up. Once again it just goes to prove you learn something new every day.
I seem to recall that US military flights carrying bombs to Germany were once welcomed in Britain. I've seen the chapel in St. Paul's Cathederal honoring the American flyers who gave their lives carrying those bombs. I bet this miserable woman was conceived by someone who lived thru those days. Too bad they didn't have the courage to impress upon her what Britain owes to US.
Yeah, and I remember an even more remoted days when Britain used military force to obtain military bases overseas. Perhaps this poor woman's great-great-great-grandfather was a general that took part in those days of gunboat diolpmacy?
As for this bit.
It has emerged that in future only military airfields will be used.
Damm right I say again Damm right.
Should not be using civilian bases for the transport of bombs.
No real emergency services and no real security.
So lets not all rush out looking ashamed read the whole story first
I agree with you. This seems like common sense to me, not an insult.
I would say "no biggie", and that the use of civilian airfields for the transport of munitions is not really a pressing concern. But I know how the pinko mind (such as it is) works.
First the flights will be banned from civilian airfields, then from airfields with civilian populations nearby, then from airfields with civilian employees, etc, etc. It is a one-way ratchet with these people, and they must be denied from the very git-go.
Very much common sense, I am not sure how weapons are transported across America, but I would bet its by Military bases set up for that very reason.
I can't see why this wasn't done in the first place. The US has plenty of air bases in the UK which would be able to handle these flights without an eyelid being batted. (and rightly so)
Running them through civillian airports was bound to raise eyebrows in certain sections - and everyone could have done without the usual suspects kicking up a fuss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.