So let's prevent all non-US airlines from buying Boeing aircraft Or better still, let's prevent all other countries from buying any US products.They should take care of their oen country first.

LOL, NO, let's just have a government that works for us.Truth be told, it's been foreign governments and their people who have actually been better to us then our own government.A little common sense goes a long way.Anyways, I don't want to get to political here.

Ralph Nader, 4 More Years!!!!Just kidding :-)Bryan

>I don't like it that my own country lost the ability to build>its own equipment bit by bit from the 1940s, and is now almost>totally dependent on other countries (including its>traditional enemies, the French, Germans, Brits, and Spanish)>for the means of its defense.It's been a long time since Britain had any conflict with The Netherlands so I'm surprised to find that I'm your 'traditional' enemy. That's a bit sad for me as whenever I've been to Holland I've always had the nicest time and found people to be very helpful and friendly. I'll have to be more careful next time I go :-)

The last war to be officially over was ended with a peace treaty not 10 years ago.Admittedly there had not been any fighting for over 300 years and everyone involved had somehow forgotten there was a war on, but still :)But yes, we've been at war quite a lot, in between working together to fight the French, Germans, Spanish, Swedes, and just about everyone else.

I am unsure why this makes some US folks uneasy. The US had been using Harriers for yonks. You've also bought the WestlandAugusta EH101 for Marine 1. We in the UK have bought JSF and Apache. Germany has been a US customer for decades. EADS is really a European organisation. Contracts for EADS means money for the UK too.

We don't mind buying stuff from everyone else, we can't make everything, what we mind is our government allowing our companies to farm out jobs that we desperatly need right now and giving them tax breaks to do it.

"Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker. 'More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability,' he said."http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7272272.stmUS forces don't deserve the best available equipment?

I think both make the very good equipment.

Even so, Gen Arthur J Lichte and his staff think that the Airbus option is better.My question still stands.

And I'm saying that your question is not the relevant question right now...LOL. No disrespect intended, but you're not reading the replies.

You know what I don't understand, is if size was a deciding factor, Boeing could have put up the 777 instead of the 767, or the 767-400. The 777 probably would have been cheaper to operate in the long run, being more fuel efficient!

>Even so, Gen Arthur J Lichte and his staff think that the>Airbus option is better.>does he, or does he know that if he doesn't say what he does he can say his pension and job goodbye?>My question still stands.The USAF decided before that the KC767 was the better aircraft by a wide margin.Congress, under pressure from the EU, told them to reconsider and suddenly the A330 tanker is better?

Which replies am I not reading?

The US Congress does what the EU wants?