Principles and rule of law should matter than a contract though of $ 40 biilion or $100 billions. of course the defence contract involve national securiy but it should be presumed that it is not so when military department approved global tenders for such contract on merits.

democratic presidetial conteders both obama and clinton not to forget political ideals, basic principles of free trade national policy as a model to world to come and use nationalistic rhetoric just for some special interests or for primary votes.

It also indicaes that US is falling behind the Europe in technology leadership. Doesnot matter we are now moving to global world economy and there should be further liberalisation of immigration rules for tranfer of skilled labour instead of opposing the contract on pernicious nationalistic lines. nationalism leads to protectionism, moving away from globalisation, and towards unwanted global recession.

let us not act unwisely for moments sake!

s.lakshma reddy, hyderabad, india

Reversing this decision for political reasons would be short term madness and against the freemarket ideals that politicians are supposed to support. The US military would end up with an inferior aircraft and there is the possibility that European governments and consumers would try to pressure European airlines into buying Airbus passenger aircraft instead of Boeing. All in all very messy.

James, Jakarta, Indonesia

I love how the Americans go round the world preaching free trade until they lose out on a contract then we get idiots writing to their congressmen complaining: Grow up USA and stop acting like a spoiled kid - you are not alone in the world and if you want to be part of it you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

George, Glasgow, UK

The threshold of american pride should not be ignored.

Bad news on all "fronts" are somewhat to much at the moment...

Peter Vernunft, Berlin, Germany

Javier - I'm sure after a 2 year tender process that led to the contract being awarded to the most compliant offer at the best price, that your letter will almost certainly lead to a reversal of their decision.

Paul, Melbourne, Australia

"Politicians will not want to be seen to be blocking a deal that the Pentagon says is the best for the armed forces."

Well, you cannot serve God and Mammon, can you?

Besides, notwithstanding the fact that the American military "deserves the best" (according to Boeing workers demonstrating in a few days ago), it would be rather strange to see American politicians preaching the free market Gospel one moment and, the moment after, refusing to admit the very proof that globalisation and free markets work (at least by providing the best for the American military).

RONNIE, PARIS, FRANCE

Well I did not hesitate to write to my Congressional representatives and Senators so as to inform them of my extreme displeasure with this contract.

After the lack of support showed by the German and French government in Afghanistan, along with their unwillingness to purchase any of our major weapons systems in the last 20 years, I urged my representatives to VOID this contract and award the purchase to Boeing.

Let's face it, in the end this contract will not be given to EADS. Politics trump everything.

Javier Arroyo, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

If the deal is blocked by Congress the implications could be even worse for Boeing than for EADS. Does anyone seriously think that European governments won't pressure their national airlines to drop Boeing aircraft from their fleets? Privatised or not, EU politicians could make like extremely difficult for any European airline that chooses Boeing over Airbus in the future - and I would hope so. The US invented the term "Global Economy" but it seems they only want to adhere to the principals when it suits them.

Brian, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Sen Clinton thought it was great win Lockheed Martin (Owego, NY) used a foriegn aircraft to win the Presidential Helicopter replacement competition. In addition, when Lockheed proposed a variant of the same foreign tanker for the AF Combat Search and Rescue competition and lost she piled onto the protest process avocating that Lockheed be given another chance to win the contract. Like the Northrop Grumman's proposal, Lockheed proposed using a foreign built product while performing the military modifications in the US. If Congress did not want a foreign product to win, they should have passed legislation last year. The AF was open and fair and followed the procurement laws. The warfighter gets the best capaility while the US taxpayer gets the best value. Let the AF do their job and replace these 50yr old tankers before one falls out of the sky like our aging F-15 fighter fleet of late!

Lara, Fort Worth, TX

basically the USA needs allies and it needs allies badly and what better way to get them than buy them - this is what's happening here - the USA is buying friends - ahh shame!

Jason Walker, Oxfordshire , UK

Why let Northrop bid in the first place if your not going to let them have the contract? Northrop will have to be compensated if you take it from them. Why not just give it to Boeing without going to tender? McCain's previous position is the only logical one - the best tender wins, and that is what happened. Any other position is just pandering to national parochialism. What the USA needs right now is leadership, and I hope McCain sticks to his principles. Protectionism has a place, but if you change the rules after the finish it is going to cost you, and it makes a farce of the tender process and the market economy or what is left of it. The reason the USA is going through a "tumultuous period" is because of the intervention that caused the real estate bubble to prop-up stock markets. Now people call for more intervention against market forces and the very competition that made the USA a world power.

BrianOH, Auckland, NZ