Re: [MV] Re-importation of US MV's-BATF response

From: Geoff Winnington-Ball (gwball@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Jul 03 2001 - 16:17:51 PDT


Here's a thought, fellows... if the item in question was supplied to
Canada in WW2, it was PAID IN FULL BY CASH. Canada took not one red cent
of Lendlease in WW2.

Kind of changes the spin on their position statement, doesn't it?

-- 
Regards,

Geoff Winnington-Ball MAPLE LEAF UP! ==> Zephyr, Ontario, Canada ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maple Leaf Up - The Canadian Army Overseas in WW2 http://www.mapleleafup.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment http://www.1cacr.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Muttguru@aol.com wrote: > > Dean......... > > <<As a condition of receiving these U.S.-origin items the foreign > governments agreed to return the articles to the United States or to pay over > the proceeds of any sale.>> > > Just a thought here............... what if these items HAD been legitimately > sold off by the recipient Nation, and the money received from the sale was > sent back to the USA? Why would the US Treasury feel short-changed in these > circumstances? I know for a fact that lots of MB/GPWs were sold by France > about 15-20 years ago but were listed in a DRMS-catalog. The Thai military do > exactly the same.......they had a catalog on the web not long ago, organised > by DRMS. > > A further thought.............. what about items used DIRECTLY by US Military > forces overseas, then legitimately sold off directly by DRMS overseas (like > here in UK, NL or Germany)..........why should a ban apply to these items? > The cash generated goes DIRECTLY back to the Treasury, but the item is > usually purchased by a bidder from the host country. How can a ban justified > here, too? > > Ken



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 09:34:10 PDT