McCain on defensive over Air Force tanker contract (EADS/Airbus v. Boeing brouhaha)

Thankyou.

Not posting from France. Its the island (archipelago really) just to its west. ‘Mercia’ is old english for my geographical location. Not the best of Niknames, i grant you.

I can understand with the portectionism bit to be fair. Personally I would much rather the UK had a totally independent nuclear deterent. But we buy off you, which as you argued, reduces our national security by relying on a foreign nation with differing ambitions. That is why I am pleased tht much of the UK’s new hardware is being designed and built in the UK. Take the dozens of new vessels for the RN, the RAF Typhoon etc.

Whatever my opinion, its a sure bet that companies will tender for the contract again, and this time the right decision will come out. Its a shame though, that we can’t simply do a bit of business with each other from time to time. Its a two way street after all.

As for all the ‘bribes’ and all that, well, I stick by my guns. These practices have ALWAYS gone on, its part of doing business. If you don’t, then you’re going to have a much lesser chance of success.

As for all the ‘bribes’ and all that, well, I stick by my guns. These practices have ALWAYS gone on, its part of doing business. If you don’t, then you’re going to have a much lesser chance of success.

I am sure that the French agree with you, and are simply apalled at American Naivity', eh?

Thus, you make my case. Yes. We are losing out. But we don't have to in our own national defense. EADS trustworthiness is thus self-admittedly debunked.

Case Closed.

But we buy off you, which as you argued, reduces our national security by relying on a foreign nation with differing ambitions.

Uh, we actually taught you guys the nuclear stuff. So absent that you never would have been building any of it.

That is why I am pleased tht much of the UK’s new hardware is being designed and built in the UK. Take the dozens of new vessels for the RN, the RAF Typhoon etc.

Fine. But you won't deploy any. You can't even afford a 44 ship fleet. Now down to 22 and declining from there...without any air defenses on the cruisers. "Too costly" some idjits assert.

Undoubtedly they will have the same say on all the other toys you are yearning for. Hence, you will never get them. We had the same kind of game played by Jimmy Carter here. He promised a bunch of stuff, but always planned on negotiating them away and hence never deploying.

Your guys are just doing it unilaterally.

No. It's not. Your side subsidizes, and writes off the "launch loans" and pretends they were "satisfied". Your side tariffs our products with its 19% border tax. And then subsidizes exports with the VAT reimbursement.

And that is BEFORE the criminal espionage of France, and outright bribery they routinely practice which you have acknolwedged. What you really fail to grasp is that their level of corruption IS unique, and should disqualify them from any possibility of any award of U.S. TAXPAYER dollars....helping further an illegal abomination of a company.

Airbus is Crooked

“Uh, we actually taught you guys the nuclear stuff. So absent that you never would have been building any of it.”

This is a complete fabrication of the facts. I KNOW, at the highest levels, that we developed the idea and then worked for the US Gov to bring it into fruition.

This isn’t well known outside the right places, and I can’t say any more about it.

For Gods sake man, I was trying to be accommodating and not get embroiled in a tit for tat argument over the internet. I couldn’t have been more concliatory in my reply to you, elaving you plenty of cases to amicably disagree, and move on.

...without any air defenses on the cruisers...

Nonsense. You have done no research here, otherwise you would note that the Type 45 detroyer IS Air Defence. That is their role, and why they were conceived and being built as we speak.

...Fine. But you won’t deploy any...

Nonsense. What do you think HMS’ Chatham, Campbeltown, and Cardigan Bay have been doing in Iraqi waters off the coast? Fishing? No, leading the Multi-National fleet protecting Iraqi oil terminals.

New vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Anyhow, I got work to get to, but I’ll be back to reprise this, and correct your mistakes.

...You can’t even afford a 44 ship fleet. Now down to 22 and declining from there...

There are currently 90 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy, including aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, mine counter-measures and patrol vessels. There are also the support of 17 vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy

If you mean the surface combatants, the number is 25, with 8 destroyers and 17 frigates. This is without the new Type 45 class coming into the fleet over the next few years. 16 mine counter measure vessels, 22 patrol craft of various class, 3 assault ships, 2.5 carriers, and 13 submarines. And thats without the new Astute class nuclear subs (of which 7 are planned).

Now imagine a single one of your ‘states’ with such firepower. Americans often fail to realise we are a very, very, very, small island, that continuously fights above its weight every single time.

This is a complete fabrication of the facts. I KNOW, at the highest levels, that we developed the idea and then worked for the US Gov to bring it into fruition.

B.S. Manhattan Project on was U.S. Allied contributions were essentially sending some scientific sycophants and spies in...(thanks Neils Bohr!)...we didn't need any help being undermined from within with guys like Oppenheimer.

This isn’t well known outside the right places, and I can’t say any more about it.

You can't because your assertion is the total fabrication. We invented the reactors (check in with Hyman Rickover) the warheads at Los Alamos and tested them all in the various and sundry proving grounds and then each of the delivery systems from the early cruise missiles Regulus, to the ICBMs Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, first SLBMs Polaris ( At Edward Teller's prompting the Navy's Jupiter plans were abandoned in favor of the much smaller, solid-propellant Polaris.), Poseidon, Trident, and finally the best ICBM ever made, the Peacekeeper, and a whole slew of tactical and medium systems, as well as the bomber-deliverables from gravity to SRAM and ALCMs.

Sorry, the facts are that you guys were just nuclear wanna-be's ...along with the French...who got the benefit of our research, development and our economies of scale.

It was deemed that although you guys hadn't contributed anything commensurate with the collossal defense projects we paid for, we would gift these systems and technologies to you...and the French...so as to diversify the Western survivability of a deterrent against the monolithic Soviet threat.

Of course we are talking about surface combatants. Which does not count auxiliaries. Your contention is not backed up by your obsolete Wiki link which is not updated which says 80.

Check the London Daily Telegraph report from May 1, 2007:

Almost half of the British Royal Navy's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of cost-cutting measures by the Ministry of Defense (MoD), London's Daily Telegraph reported on Friday.
The British government has said that 13 warships are in a state of "reduced readiness," putting them around 18 months away from active service, according to the report, which added that a further six destroyers and frigates were being proposed for cuts.
The report said a need to cut the defense budget by 250 million pounds (around 486 million U.S. dollars) this year to meet spending requirements had forced ministers to look at drastic measures.
Senior officials said the plan would turn Britain's Navy into nothing more than a coastal defense force.
"What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defense force or a fleet of dug-out canoes." said a senior official.
MoD sources admitted it was possible that the Royal Navy would discontinue one of its major commitments around the world, the report said.

I would also find corroboration for these numbers and assessments in Jane's Fighting Ships, but that is a subscription link only so it would do you no good.

In 1934 the idea of chain reaction via neutron was proposed by Leó Szilárd, who patented the idea of the atomic bomb. The patent was transferred[clarify] in secret to England's navy in 1936. In a very real sense[who?], Szilárd was the father of the atomic bomb academically.

This is from Wikipedia. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes says the same thing.

Your replies are pretty harsh to people trying to converse with you.

This is from Wikipedia. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes says the same thing.

Irrelevant. Szilard's work was NOT a useable weapon ala' the U.S. Manhattan Project, nor the H Bomb...nor ANY of the delivery systems we paintstakingly developed and perfected over the past 60+ years...at U.S. expense.

We are already tired of bankrolling the European defense parasites....and now the EADs people are scheming to take their leeching of the U.S. taxpayer, and destruction of U.S. industry... to the next level.

Your replies are pretty harsh to people trying to converse with you.

I could say the same about 90+% of the EADs apologists. I am sorry if the facts bother you so much. But I haven't been nearly as "harsh" about EADs as they truly deserve. If this was a just world, all of their executives and their government backers in their respective governments would be doing life sentances in jail.

I do not, will not, "suffer gladly" Euro-revisionism, moral relativism or outright historical amnesia as is evoked by these kinds of sentiments:

Its a two way street after all.

Implying we are just as guilty of global bribery and "stealing" industry with subsidies.

Are you agreeing with his position???

You do realize that this position is AN INSULT to a real American.

So his harshness is okay, apparently, but when he is busted on it, I am the harsh one.

Based on what you are saying, it is open to question how much a Goldwater supporter (which I was as a lad) you really were.

Based on what you are saying, it is open to question how much a Goldwater supporter (which I was as a lad) you really were.

I may have forgotten it in my old age, but I do not remember Barry being an isolationist. I do happen to have a high regard for Northrop Grumman. I haven't had much regard for Boeing for several reasons. Some of the are Darlene Druyan, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Gov Gregoire (sp, Jim McDermott. I do not consider any of them to be Americans.

I may have forgotten it in my old age, but I do not remember Barry being an isolationist.

He was a moralist.

I do happen to have a high regard for Northrop Grumman.

Putting the finger of suspicion on yourself, eh?

I haven't had much regard for Boeing for several reasons.

Fine.

But then your feelings of disquiet about it should also be reflected in concern over EADs.

Putting an NG face on EADs doesn't change the stripes of the tiger.

Some of the are Darlene Druyan, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Gov Gregoire (sp, Jim McDermott. I do not consider any of them to be Americans.

I do. I know and sympathise where you are likely coming from. They are not particularly good Americans overall politically. They are RATs.

But they are, so far as I know, authentic citizens.

And it has come as a pleasant surprise to see them actually research and familiarize themselves with our defense needs for a change, and show some critical thinking ability about the NG/EADs spin and USAF echoing thereof.

And for balance, you need to be aware of something. The support for Boeing is not merely ideology or party politics. Its national security on this. Usually, I grant you, the preserve of we conservatives. And specifically note other conservatives have also taken a dim view of the EADs role here: E.g., note that Frank Gaffney, Bill Bennet, Laura Ingrahm, Michelle Malkin, and Col. Robert North have so inidicated their explicit doubts.

But apparently we are not always alone.

So are staunch national security conservatives to be condemned because it just so happens that those RATs are chiming in along similar lines as well (however suspect we may view their likely motivations)?

I do not remember Barry being an isolationist.

Since when is being pro-American and being for national security being "an isolationist"? Is national security now being defined as isolationism? Since when? Since W and McCain? Well look at how they have no support for their views on Amnesty or Borders and Trade.

And if you deviate from the National Security issue to waffle over to Trade ...do you truly think that promoting and defending REAL free trade being "an isolationist"?

Since when?

And if it is... Was Reagan an Isolationist? Was George Washington? Was Abraham Linocln? Was Teddy Roosevelt? Was Thomas Jefferson?

But they were all for what you now call "protectionism".

America First.

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.