"Glenn P." wrote in message
...
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.

No, the point was that the desperation that virtually all nations, and their
manufacturers, often exhibit otwards selling/leasing their aircraft has
increasingly grown--twenty years ago a 100% plus offset would have been
laughed off, now it is common, and IIRC the offset agreed to for the now
stillborne Eurofighter deal in Austria was a full 200%? And FYI, when it
comes down to the final accounting on a national level, if you meet your
100% offset target then you have essentially broken even on the old
balance-of-trade account. It does not take a genius to figure that if all of
your products are marketed in that fashion you'd be bankrupt before very
long. Idiot? (Gee, it would have been nice to have discussed this without
dropping down to your third-grade level, but c'est la vie...)


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.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh? I did not say that, and
how you construed it from what I did say is truly mind-boggling--I think it
is time you got the old graymatter tuned up, eh? The fact is that Saab spent
a lot of capital advertising Gripen as being allegedly the first "fourth
generation" fighter to enter service and to be available for export. Since
that time, they have gotten firm orders from South Africa, Hungary, and now
the Czech Republic, for a total of what, around 60 aircraft? Let's see,
since Gripen entered the export scene, how many F-16's have been sold?
Israel (50), Greece (50), UAE (80), Korea (20), Singapore (20), Chile
(10-12), Poland (48), etc. That is just the new builds. What does that tell
you, especially considering the past claims from Saab that they offered the
only available fourth gen fighter? Sounds to me like a bit of desperation
may be called for on the part of Saab and Sweden if they can't sell their
allegedly more modern, and as cheap (if not cheaper) Gripen as successfully
as the F-16 has been selling (F-16C/D export at about $25 million in '98,
while the Gripen estimated cost hit that figure in 2001
(www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/ html/1998/msg00333.html and
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITO...5/sukumar.html )).


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.

This is not a car sale. It said what it said--if that was poor wording on
the part of the folks at Saab, so be it.


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.

Ever heard of FMF/FMS? A bunch of sales under its guise are at no cost to
the customer; we pay the expenses. We do grants of more than that every year
to Israel alone, and IIRC Egypt as well ($1.3 billion in contracts to Egypt
in 2002, all waived payment). That is US money paying for US goods for
friendly foreign customers, to support our foreign policy goals. I guess
Sweden could start doing the same kind of thing, though what the objectives
of such a program for a neutral nation would be I don't know.

As to your parting vulgarity...owww, that hurts! Nah, not really...if you
were anything but a clueless imbecile, that would probably hurt. As it is,
it's obviously just a result of poor parental suvervision during your
younger years, by which I mean before the age of twelve--my guess is you are
unlikely to be a day over sixteen now...

Brooks


Glenn P.