It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was A380 Part Of A Boeing Conspiracy?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Keep talking RobertPrice.

Airbus and the French and the EU are whiners and use any means, excluding war, to get their way on aircraft sales, buddy.
Think not?
Whats this?
Tsunami-hit Thais told: Buy six planes or face EU tariffs

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 appreciated.





seekerof

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Maybe the EU uses any mean to sell but war... America uses all the european methods... and also uses war to their intentions... So what's worse??? at least Europe don't invade countries without probes to make money



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Cheese and whine.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Tissue?




seekerof



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

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.

www.washtimes.com...
www.cato.org...
www.newsobserver.com...



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 appreciated.



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.



Source: atimes.com...
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?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
One final post on this subject to say that from now on, I refuse to take part in any Airbus verses Boeing 'competitions' on this discussion board, because thats what they are - they arent discussions at all, and absolutely nothing except anger, hate and stress comes out of these threads whatsoever.

If you feel the need to upsell your country and products, then go right ahead - I wont be participating.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

as posted by RichardPrice
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.


Erm, RichardPrice, there was no lowering myself.
It was a simple mistake, that apparently you did not see as such.
You have my apologies.

As to the other matters, 'cause and effect' comes into all discussions.
Again, simply because I see you were and are offended, I offer my apologies for that.

Likewise, I will abstain from such Airbus and Boeing discussions.




seekerof



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, RichardPrice, there was no lowering myself.
It was a simple mistake, that apparently you did not see as such.
You have my apologies.


In that case, I dont feel an apology on your part is at all required, but thankyou for the offer. I came down too harshly on what was, on reflection, an obvious mistake, and I offer YOU an apology for that.



As to the other matters, 'cause and effect' comes into all discussions.
Again, simply because I see you were and are offended, I offer my apologies for that.

Likewise, I will abstain from such Airbus and Boeing discussions.


Thankyou, but again no apology is needed. These discussions, like the pro/antiUS threads, rapidly turn into what can only be described as Mutually Assured Destruction - both sides have a point of view which they chase religiously to the end, however bloody that may be. Both of us can post another thousand posts to this thread, each detailing the failings in Boeing or Airbus, but ultimately it gets us nowhere as in reality both companies are jsut as bad as each other, and that will never change (unless the two merge - hmmm possible thread there?
)

There is no need to abstain from discussion on my part, especially if that discussion is at all positive in anyway. But I emplore you, and everyone else involved in these types of threads, to step back and think if what they are about to post actually contributes anythign at all to the thread other than mudslinging.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join