TheDarkling wrote:Yeah because the WTO must be biased against the US they couldn't actually be calling it as they see it, and the appeals body made up of 7 legal experts were all bought off by the EU I imagine.
The US has won several victories against the EU in the WTO forum but I suppose we should simply dismiss them, no wait better yet it was simply the EU playing tactically and making it seem like he WTO wasn't in their pocket... yeah that’s the ticket.
If they'll slap the US with sanctions for tax breaks while ignoring the EU nations flat out financing corporations some things fucked up. Dare I suggest it might it might be anti-us bias. Oh no I said it, the french are going to come get me!
They aren't ignoring anything, has the US raised those issues with WTO? we have already seen the WTO rule in the US favour in US-EU disputes however because you seem to like to cry "poor me" from the rooftops lets just ignore reality .
TheDarkling wrote:They aren't ignoring anything, has the US raised those issues with WTO? we have already seen the WTO rule in the US favour in US-EU disputes however because you seem to like to cry "poor me" from the rooftops lets just ignore reality .
The US has raised the issue to no effect. And if they can over look such massive hypocrisy just to nail the US on this why should we think they'd rule for us on the same issue?
TheDarkling wrote:When did they raise the issue? just to aid me in finding information about it.
Because we wanted to do something about it. Essentially the US was backing Boeing after they had lost several contracts to Airbus because the EU was essentially picking up all of Airbus's expenses. We tried to get the EU nations to back off the practice and they wouldn't budge.
The only info I can find is what I could already remember.
US complains about it being unfair.
The EU it isn't.
The US asks for the accounts.
The EU hands over the accounts.
Then nothing, I can find no mention of the US filing a complaint with the WTO either at several news sites or on the WTO site.
Are you sure they actually filled an official complaint?
I also feel I must point out that the US government often lends picks up development costs of Boeing by first having them develop something for NASA of the DOD and then Boeing using that to develop civil aircraft (both the 707 and 747 were the result of US Govt programs)
TheDarkling wrote:
I also feel I must point out that the US government often lends picks up development costs of Boeing by first having them develop something for NASA of the DOD and then Boeing using that to develop civil aircraft (both the 707 and 747 were the result of US Govt programs)
So you see something wrong with a company reusing information it gained in a pervious contract? If the US government was actually funding the development of civilian aircraft, which was what France did for Airbus, you might have a point.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
TheDarkling wrote:I also feel I must point out that the US government often lends picks up development costs of Boeing by first having them develop something for NASA of the DOD and then Boeing using that to develop civil aircraft (both the 707 and 747 were the result of US Govt programs)
Well of course, it is the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. They help anybody develop new technological concepts and then share the information that results. For more specific testing the private companies must pay the bill. Many of the aviation technologies we take for granted today came from the process.
And as to your claim of the 707 being govt programs, you need to reread your history books. There were no government or airline contracts for the 707. Developing that airplane was a sink or swim gamble for Boeing. If no one bought the aircraft Boeing would have gone under that year.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
The prototype first (Boeing Model 367-80) flew on 15 July 1954, and the initial aircraft off the production line were military KC-135A flight refueling tanker/transports.
TheDarkling wrote:When did they raise the issue? just to aid me in finding information about it.
Because we wanted to do something about it. Essentially the US was backing Boeing after they had lost several contracts to Airbus because the EU was essentially picking up all of Airbus's expenses. We tried to get the EU nations to back off the practice and they wouldn't budge.
On the official WTO page, there is no single complaint from the USA about Airbus to be found.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
The prototype first (Boeing Model 367-80) flew on 15 July 1954, and the initial aircraft off the production line were military KC-135A flight refueling tanker/transports.
So the US bought a useful military aircraft? We probably did pay for part it and I doubt Boeing forget everything when they made the 707. That's still light years apart from financing, in full, a purely commercial jetliner.
WTF is with this rising anti-Europeanism here? I guess Iraq War still affects people's mindsets.
I can't speak for other but I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of a lot of the European nations with regards to the US. The Iraq war brought a lot of that to a head to be sure. But really it all comes down to their behaviour and annoying hypocrisy.
And I can't speak for others but I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of the US with regards to a lot of the European nations.
Stormbringer wrote:
So the US bought a useful military aircraft? We probably did pay for part it and I doubt Boeing forget everything when they made the 707. That's still light years apart from financing, in full, a purely commercial jetliner.
I would like to get some evidence that the EU has been acting illegally since I assume your inability to produce evidence of the WTO stone walling the US on the airbus incident means you misremembered.
TheDarkling wrote:I would like to get some evidence that the EU has been acting illegally since I assume your inability to produce evidence of the WTO stone walling the US on the airbus incident means you misremembered.
I never claimed the EU behaviour was illegal. Just hypocritical in light of the fact they are now sanctioning the US for tax breaks.
I never claimed it the US had brought it to the WTO. We tried to deal with the nations directly, the same ones that got us slapped with sanctions in the WTO. The point of this being that we can't deal with them so why should we be able to deal with them as a body.
The prototype first (Boeing Model 367-80) flew on 15 July 1954, and the initial aircraft off the production line were military KC-135A flight refueling tanker/transports.
Holy crap the US government may have paid to help develop an aircraft, which its military then bought hundreds of and uses to this day! Now do you have an example of something the USAF didn't make off with 700 and was purely civilian that's actually relevant.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
TheDarkling wrote:I would like to get some evidence that the EU has been acting illegally since I assume your inability to produce evidence of the WTO stone walling the US on the airbus incident means you misremembered.
I never claimed the EU behaviour was illegal. Just hypocritical in light of the fact they are now sanctioning the US for tax breaks.
I never claimed it the US had brought it to the WTO. We tried to deal with the nations directly, the same ones that got us slapped with sanctions in the WTO. The point of this being that we can't deal with them so why should we be able to deal with them as a body.
Well, the US *did* complain about a shitload of things at the WTO council for various reasons.
But just not in this Airbus case.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
TheDarkling wrote:I would like to get some evidence that the EU has been acting illegally since I assume your inability to produce evidence of the WTO stone walling the US on the airbus incident means you misremembered.
I never claimed the EU behaviour was illegal. Just hypocritical in light of the fact they are now sanctioning the US for tax breaks.
I never claimed it the US had brought it to the WTO. We tried to deal with the nations directly, the same ones that got us slapped with sanctions in the WTO. The point of this being that we can't deal with them so why should we be able to deal with them as a body.
So essentially you are saying that the EU is acting within agreed upon limits in the 1992 deal between the US and EU regarding this sort of thing and that the US is committing an act that the predecessor to the WTO ruled with illegal.
The EU also tried to deal with the US however the US simply wouldn't play nice, it isn't like this has sped up on the US the complaint was first lodged in 97 for Petes sake.
Also don't say that the US won't deal directly when they have taken other things to the WTO.
The EU is taking action that it has the rioght to do and an action that many other WTO members including the US have done before.
So essentially you are saying that the EU is acting within agreed upon limits in the 1992 deal between the US and EU regarding this sort of thing and that the US is committing an act that the predecessor to the WTO ruled with illegal.
The EU also tried to deal with the US however the US simply wouldn't play nice, it isn't like this has sped up on the US the complaint was first lodged in 97 for Petes sake.
Translation: "The US is mean. Europe has the right to do whatever it wants while the US must accomodate us." Europe, the bright shining beacon of hypocrisy.
Also don't say that the US won't deal directly when they have taken other things to the WTO.
Yeah. But why should we bring it to the WTO when they won't deal? Because we've brought other things to the WTO proves nothing.
The EU is taking action that it has the rioght to do and an action that many other WTO members including the US have done before.
They have the right. The US also has the right to tell them to fuck off.
So essentially you are saying that the EU is acting within agreed upon limits in the 1992 deal between the US and EU regarding this sort of thing and that the US is committing an act that the predecessor to the WTO ruled with illegal.
The EU also tried to deal with the US however the US simply wouldn't play nice, it isn't like this has sped up on the US the complaint was first lodged in 97 for Petes sake.
Translation: "The US is mean. Europe has the right to do whatever it wants while the US must accomodate us." Europe, the bright shining beacon of hypocrisy.
The EU didn't make the decision. The WTO does. We only sued. You lost. End of deal.
Also don't say that the US won't deal directly when they have taken other things to the WTO.
Yeah. But why should we bring it to the WTO when they won't deal? Because we've brought other things to the WTO proves nothing.
And you know exactly how that the WTO won't deal?
The EU is taking action that it has the rioght to do and an action that many other WTO members including the US have done before.
They have the right. The US also has the right to tell them to fuck off.
No, they don't. Unless they completely retreat from the WTo, of course.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
Translation: "The US is mean. Europe has the right to do whatever it wants while the US must accomodate us." Europe, the bright shining beacon of hypocrisy.
Translation: I concede.
I accept
The EU can follow legal guidelines as can the US, wait hmmm be right back.....
Nope my dictionary doesn't have a radically different definition of hypocrisy so I assume the problem must be on your end and thus I advise you to consult a dictionary.
Yeah. But why should we bring it to the WTO when they won't deal? Because we've brought other things to the WTO proves nothing.
You don't understand the WTO do you? be honest.
The WTO is where you go when you want action on trade issues and if they aren't resolved you can get compensation in order to offset the problem and try to bring about a resolution.
If the US is so weak willed they don't want to solve the problem then thats their fault and crying about other nations following procedure is frankly pathetic.
They have the right. The US also has the right to tell them to fuck off.
Luckily there are some people in the US government that realise they don't actually run the world and do have to play by the rules.
As much as you would like the US to get away with illegal activities I'm afraid they aren't going to do them without being punished.
The EU didn't make the decision. The WTO does. We only sued. You lost. End of deal.
And you know exactly how that the WTO won't deal?
May I direct you to your own quote. The WTO is not an impartial body and the odds are stacked against the US because we aren't popular. If it's members won't deal why should we expect the whole body of them to?
No, they don't. Unless they completely retreat from the WTo, of course.
If they're stupid enough to sanction us that might happen.
And thus in one stunning move President Stormbringer brought down global trade and cast the world back into the 19th century.
It's the Europeans and the WTO that are for sanctioning the US. Seems like it's you guys that are the ones that are trying to do that to me.
Honestly you were caught doing something wrong and punished, now you are crying and are going to take your ball home??
Grow up man.
As if what the European Union is perfectly okay? And we get punished for less. That's like seeing it's okay to embezzle a million but steal ten bucks from the register and you go to jail. You'e capital H Hypocrite.
Oh no I said it, the french are going to come get me!
