posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Seekerof
Keep talking RobertPrice.
The names RichardPrice - if you as a moderator need to lower yourself to that level then I really need to question why I come here.
Airbus and the French and the EU are whiners and use any means, excluding war, to get their way on aircraft sales, buddy.
And the US arent whiners? The US is extremely good at pointing fingers at other countries when they themselves arent exactly any better.
Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six planes or face EU tariffs
I dealt with this in another thread on ATS or ATSNN - I cant remember which, and shall try and dig the link up. The action mentioned in that post was
*PASSED* in the EU in October 2004, and it wasnt a 'Buy planes or suffer tariffs' it was a fact that they were going to suffer tariffs anyway, and
the matter would be mitigated if they decided to go ahead with a plane purchase THAT WAS ALREADY UNDER DISCUSSION. But the EUs detractors like to
look at a very very small part of the picture and scream and kick without having all the details. All of this is detailed in that other thread. When
the tsunami hit in December 2004, the EU chose to not apply the tariffs in any form. The enaction of the law in December 2004 was a legal formality
that could NOT be changed at that late date.
By the way, why not take a look at the huge tariffs the US placed on Thailand Shrimp imports days before the tsunami and CONTINUED TO COLLECT THEM
after the disaster hit, with no exceptions? These tariffs are also illegal under the WTO rules because they form part of something called 'Double
Compensation' which sees the industries that the tariffs protect be awarded the money the tariffs raises, in addition to government help that had
already been awarded. This was passed in 2000 has already been delcared illegal by the WTO - but that rarely seems to bother the US, now does it?
Whats even more interesting is that the US shrimp industry primarily employs immigrants, not US workers.
Btw, how about a link to that assertion that France was against India getting a UN council seat prior to the failed Airbus deal. Be much
Unfortunately, no I cant - it was based on something said during a BBC news report a few weeks ago. Until I can substantiate this with a link, please
consider the comment retracted.
What I will say tho is that the US opposed the Indian Security Council seat until the Boeing deal was done.
The US is now the only one opposed to India's candidacy. Washington's opposition to India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is
due to its Indo-Pakistan centric South Asia policy, with Pakistan seen as Washington's key ally in its "war against terrorism". The US does not
want to upset Pakistan, which opposes India's entry to the council
Now this is interesting, because it casts new light on my recent topic on the US lifting an embargo on F-16s to Pakistan - was a deal done on all
three sides do I wonder? Now who uses business in politics?