Kevin Brooks wrote:

Because we live in a world where offset agreements exceeding 100% are not
uncommon?

A 100% offset agreement would mean that for every dollar I spend on your
product, you'll spend $1 on some product of mine. It doesn't mean
anybody is giving anything away, and I think you're an idiot to believe
that this tripe supports your argument.

Maybe because of the continued success of the F-16 in the export
arena versus their "fourth generation" Gripen?

Ah. The F-16 is so good, anybody who would want anything else (like new
fighters, instead of used) must be corrupt. I see.

Because, rightly or wrongly,
that allegation was what was released by Saab, the prime contractor
involved?

No, it wasn't, that's just how you misunderstood it. Here's the text,
as you earlier quoted it:

"Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the
Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."

Have you ever bought a car? Have you ever seen dealers have special
deals on financing, or free financing? Well guess what Einstein, that
doesn't mean the car is free. The financing is free. You still have to
pay for the car.

Or maybe because government-to-government transfers of new
military equipment, at no cost to the receiving party, are not unheard of?

Cite me one example of a $806,000,000 transfer "at no cost to the
receiving party", and I'll stop thinking you're a ****wit.


Glenn P.