Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Lavi (was US Naval Forces in Gulf, Air Nat'l Gaurd units)
Message-ID: <1990Aug23.014741.2143@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 23 Aug 90 01:47:41 GMT
References: <1990Aug11.015150.19844@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug21.025234.2026@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
In article <1990Aug21.025234.2026@cbnews.att.com> arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) writes:
>	had advanced electronics, fly-by-wire controls.
>	It was funded 60-70& by U.S. aid to Israel, which was spent in the US
>	to purchase engines, and other gear.
>	There was a high-level US governmental effort to kill the project,
>	electronics.


The argument went: "Why subsidize, with US Taxpayers' dollars, 
a company that will produce something that will compete directly
with US products? This would have meant job losses, export 
losses, and an increase in the net trade deficit." The fact that 
the money was to be spent in the US only means that the US tax-
payers would be paying for the parts. Why give a competitor parts
we are paying for? Why not subsidize our own industry? But no...
thats protectionism!!