Will this story never end?

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:


®i©ardo wrote:

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:



Jim Morris wrote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ss/9tanker.php



Maybe the defense department is coming to its senses that strategic
contracts need to stay within the US.

JT



...and, hopefully, Europe and the rest of the world will do the same
by refusing to buy anything from the USA.



Well, since Europe has been largely riding on the coattails of the USA
defense umbrella since the end of World War II, that just might be a
workable answer...

JT

Parts of Europe, maybe.

Britain has made a substantial contribution - I didn't see you in the
dead of night on the East - West German border in the 1960s!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Richard wrote:
And the USA offered their help out of the good of their heart?
Or did (and does) the US government have a different motivation to help
other nations and stay there for more than 60 years?



Of course not.

It's a matter of survival. You know, NATO etc...

Would you prefer China or Russia to the US?

JT

®i©ardo wrote:

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:



®i©ardo wrote:

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:



Jim Morris wrote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ss/9tanker.php



Maybe the defense department is coming to its senses that strategic
contracts need to stay within the US.

JT




...and, hopefully, Europe and the rest of the world will do the same
by refusing to buy anything from the USA.



Well, since Europe has been largely riding on the coattails of the USA
defense umbrella since the end of World War II, that just might be a
workable answer...

JT

Parts of Europe, maybe.

Britain has made a substantial contribution - I didn't see you in the
dead of night on the East - West German border in the 1960s!



No, you didn't. I was busy elsewhere on another continent.

JT

--
Jim Morris
"Grumpy AuContraire" wrote in message
...

You still driving that G4 or did you move to a Windows Machine?

Jim Morris

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:


Richard wrote:
And the USA offered their help out of the good of their heart?
Or did (and does) the US government have a different motivation to
help other nations and stay there for more than 60 years?



Of course not.

It's a matter of survival. You know, NATO etc...

Would you prefer China or Russia to the US?

JT

Looking at Iraq, that's a moot point!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

I would prefer nobody as a matter of fact, which is one of my reasons I've
joined the Royal Netherlands Navy 32 years ago.
Today Russia and especially China pose no military threat to Europe in a
military way, but are both more a threat to the US in an economic way.
Economic trade for us in Europe is more logical with Russia than with the
US, they're are neighbors after all and they've got a lot of things we're
willing to trade for (oil, gas, minerals, etc). The Russians are hording
luxury stuff and we've got lots to sell.
And China, now that's what we call an economic adventure and challenge. A
huge market still waiting to discover it's full potential.
What both those countries don't want, as much countries don't, is others
meddling with their ways of life.

As there is no direct military threat now, and will not be for many years,
the US really has no reason any more to maintain military bases in Europe.
It costs you Americans a huge amount of tax-dollars and for what reason? You
may not see it that way, but the bulk of Europeans see the military presence
of the
US nowadays more as a nuisance (understatement) than an advantage. Those
tax-dollars are better spent on social plans for the less fortunate in your
own society.
Don't think I'm ungrateful the US came to our aid in 1942, I'm just saying
they overstayed their welcome by 18 years, the Cold war is long gone. It's
time to pull their forces back and stop playing the world's policeforce. You
can't make the whole world live their life as you do in your own country,
you have to respect their way of life. That's a lesson that imperialistic
Europe has already learnt when they occupied half the world, just for power,
money and wealth. We're still paying the price for the mess we made in our
former colonies.

Now, to come back on topic. European countries buy a lot of their military
equipment outside of their own country. Not because it's better than
something they can make by themselves, but mostly it's more affordable. It
all comes down to money after all, doesn't it? So, if your government
decides to buy military equipment outside of the US because it gives them
more bang for the buck, what's so bad about that then? These tankers that
we're talking about will be built or at least assembled in the US anyway.
But they'll give your Airforce the benefit of a lower price for the same
product.
Hey, and if your president can fly European helicopters (the Lockheed US101
is the US-version of the European EH101) and the US Navy can fly European
trainers (the T-45 Goshawk is a partially US-built and redesigned version of
the BAe Hawk trainer aircraft), why can't your Airforce fly US-built
Tankers?
We (the Dutch) are considering buying and partially building F-35's in the
near future to replace our aging F-16's, while there are perfectly good
airframes over here in Europe. The decision will however be made based on
the fact which contracter will offer the most for the lowest price. Just
like it's always been.;-)

Have a nice day.
Richard

"Grumpy AuContraire" schreef in bericht
...


Richard wrote:
And the USA offered their help out of the good of their heart?
Or did (and does) the US government have a different motivation to help
other nations and stay there for more than 60 years?



Of course not.

It's a matter of survival. You know, NATO etc...

Would you prefer China or Russia to the US?

JT

Yep, but definitevely not buying US gaz guzzlers cars ....

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:46:48 -0400, Jim Morris wrote
(in article ):


You still driving that G4 or did you move to a Windows Machine?

Look at the headers.

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.13)
Gecko/20060414

He's on a Mac. Why would he downgrade?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:17:47 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:46:48 -0400, Jim Morris wrote
(in article ):


You still driving that G4 or did you move to a Windows Machine?

Look at the headers.

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.13)
Gecko/20060414

He's on a Mac. Why would he downgrade?

You don't buy a wide guage train when the tracks are all narrow guage.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A couple, both well into their 80s, go to a sex therapist's office. The
doctor asks, 'What can I do for you?
The man says, 'Will you watch us have sexual intercourse?'
The doctor raises both eyebrows, but he is so amazed that such an
elderly couple is asking for sexual advice that he agrees.
When the couple finishes, the doctor says, 'There's absolutely nothing
wrong with the way you have intercourse. 'He thanks them for coming,
wishes them good luck, charges them £50, and says goodbye.
The next week, however, the couple returns and asks the sex therapist
to watch again. The sex therapist is a bit puzzled, but
agrees. This happens several weeks in a row. The couple make an
appointment, have intercourse with no problems, pay the doctor, then
leave.
Finally, after 5 or 6 weeks of this routine, the doctor says, 'I'm
sorry, but I have to ask. Just what are you trying to find out?'
The old man says, 'We're not trying to find out anything. She's married
and we can't go to her house. I'm married and we
can't go to my house. Travelodge charge £93. The Hilton charges £139.
We do it here for £50, and I get £43 back from Bupa.'

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:03:30 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:17:47 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:46:48 -0400, Jim Morris wrote
(in article ):


You still driving that G4 or did you move to a Windows Machine?

Look at the headers.

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
rv:1.7.13)
Gecko/20060414

He's on a Mac. Why would he downgrade?

You don't buy a wide guage train when the tracks are all narrow guage.


They've been wide-guage whereever I want to go...