Will this story never end?

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



--
Jim Morris

"Jim Morris" wrote in
:

Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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





this is the first time I've ever seen "USAFE"

the meaning of the E??

"Lee" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Jim Morris" wrote in
:

Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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





this is the first time I've ever seen "USAFE"

the meaning of the E??

Europe

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

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


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

It was better when there were more than 2 companies that could build such an
aircraft.

Jim Morris

And without at least two companies, one can give us whatever they want and
sell it for whatever they want. Remember, the only reason the 767 was
offered in the first place, was to keep the line open. They couldn't compete
with the A330, and had planned to shut the line down.
Ron

"Jim Morris" wrote in message
. ..


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


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

It was better when there were more than 2 companies that could build such
an
aircraft.

Jim Morris

"Ron Monroe" wrote in message
news
And without at least two companies, one can give us whatever they want and
sell it for whatever they want. Remember, the only reason the 767 was
offered in the first place, was to keep the line open. They couldn't
compete with the A330, and had planned to shut the line down.
Ron

And could this be seen as yet another program where the taxpayer supports a
system (namely the 767) that is over 30 years old and very definitely not
'state-of-the-art'?

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.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

®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

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?

"Grumpy AuContraire" schreef in bericht
...



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