Replies

"I do not want my tax dollars going to EADS."

Ok, what about the 400+ U.S. companies in over 45 states that would benefit from the Northrop Grumman jet? I guess you don't want your tax dollars going to them either?

"This is not protectionism, this is recognition of the fact that the ability to produce military aircraft is a strategic asset."

Hence the reason why the jets are going to be built here IN the U.S.

"I don’t care if we buy canteens from the Philippines, web belts from Bangladesh, helmets from Germany or machine guns from Belgium. If we have to reconstitute those industries in a pinch, we can do it."

Can we?

"We cannot reconstitute advanced aircraft production easily, the same way we cannot reconstitute shipbuilding capability easily if it atrophies further than it already has."

Nothrop Grumman will be building those jets HERE, not in Communist China where Boeing makes large portions of theirs.

But I guess you'll be ok knowing that critical things such as control surfaces for Boeing jets will be made with the help of China's Peoples Liberation Army Air Force factories then?

"I don’t care if the Germans can build better ships or the Swedes can build better planes. We should keep the parent companies in this country to maintain the capability."

Who do you think Northrop Grumman is?

...what about the 400+ U.S. companies in over 45 states that would benefit from the Northrop Grumman jet? I guess you don't want your tax dollars going to them either?

Not a very substantial U.S. commitment. 50% of the money is going straight to Europe.

And EADs has been majorly busted on its lies before about U.S. business usage. Outside of K-Street lobbyists, their employment in the U.S. is just about nil.

You need to read the most recent post from Tanker War Blog, there is no denying the factual and philosophical realities described:

Tuesday, July 15, 2008
How EADS is Killing the Aerospace Free Market
EADS subsidies do no exist in a vacuum. These subsidies cause a ripple effect throughout the industry.
As a direct result, US aerospace companies lose market share and American aerospace workers lose current and future jobs. Additionally, to compete against these subsidies American companies are forced to cut costs; many times through the use of overseas suppliers, causing further US job loss.
America is not the only country affected. Canada which has the world's fourth largest aerospace industry - generating more than $22.7-billion in 2007 - has also suffered. Unlike the US though, Canada has decided to join EADS in the subsidies game.
The Canadian Government recently announced a $350 million dollar loan to support local owned Bombardier's new C-Series airliner. According to Canadian Business: This is a plane that will reportedly use 20% less fuel than comparable aircraft on the market at a time when airlines around the world are struggling with record high fuel prices. According to Bombardier, it will give the third-largest civil aircraft manufacturer a huge advantage. So why are Canadian taxpayers involved?
Government officials, who hope the loan will earn a “positive” return, say they want Canada to maintain its strong position as an aeronautics supplier. They point to a $250-million auto fund, as if that shows the Harper government has always supported the logic behind corporate handouts (rather than offering another good example of Harper’s growing capacity for pandering).
Simply put, Montreal was competing with Missouri for assembly rights on the C-Series jet. And with buying votes in mind, the Harper government decided to sell its soul to woo Quebec. To do so, it was even willing to risk an international trade war, since the subsidized C-Series will compete with U.S.-based Boeing and Airbus-maker European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). Since EADS is the king of subsidies, we don't think they will complain too much. But, the US government and workers in Missouri should be outraged.
Brazil - home to Embraer, another competitor to the future C series - will probably also have some issues with the "loans". But, as Wikipedia points out neither company is a stranger to the subsidies game:

Both Embraer and its main competitor, Bombardier, were engaged in a subsidy dispute in the late 90s and early 2000s. It was found by the World Trade Organization (WTO), in a 2000 ruling, that Embraer has received illegal subsidies from the Government of Brazil. In its ruling, the WTO ordered Brazil to eliminate its Proex export subsidies program, which was found to aid Embraer. In October 19, 2001, the WTO ruled against Canada, just as it had ruled against Embraer, over low interest loans from the Canadian government designed to aid Bombardier in gaining market share.

Just when you think a free market is starting to be established, someone calls for a new round of subsidies and it all falls apart again.

EADs and its business model, if left unchecked, then those 400+ U.S. companies you talk about won't be surviving much longer...

Hence the reason why the jets are going to be built here IN the U.S.

It's the reason that they should be built here in the U.S. But you are not supporting that capability with support of EADs.

Note their Lobbying is rather explicit where they are mostly going to be built, and its isn't your "400+" "U.S." companies:

The Guardian: EU leaders lobbied White House on tanker contract

Key Passage:
European newspapers have reported for months that Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel have lobbied Bush, writing letters and raising the issue in direct talks.
Initially the leaders lobbied for the contract and more recently, according to the latest reports, they have expressed concern that the Pentagon decision to reopen the tanker competition could jeopardise Airbus jobs in Europe.
"He will support the Airbus bid in any way he can," an unidentified spokesman for Brown told The Times of London last week, adding that 11,000 jobs were at stake in Britain, where the wings for the A330 are built.
According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, Tom Enders, a top EADS executive, accompanied Merkel to one meeting with Bush at the White House.

"11,000 jobs" wouldn't be at stake in Britain...unless they never intended to build the wings anyplace but Britain. Alabama is being played for a patsy. A minimal (almost non-existent) assembly pretext only, most likely to be ditched completely once they actually have the contract sewn up.

European corruption grows more undeniable with each passing day, with no doubt about the coercion and probably bribery eclipsing anything that Boeing ever did by promising a couple jobs...and the trail is leading straight to McCain and Bush.

This is further reason why we from the national security conservative wing will not be trifled with by the likes of your side. You have splintered, divided and destroyed the conservative coalition with your rapacious and heedless greed.

Who do you think Northrop Grumman is?

Clearly, they are not who you think they are. Certainly not who they pretend to be. They aren't the ones designing and building the main subcomponents or fuselage. This is who is:

Note this little gem from the Senate testimony just this week:

EADs CEO: "EADS should be "considered as an American citizen," Louis Gallois said.