Jump to content

Talk:Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove US focus

[edit]

This article focuses solely on the US's use of ACSA and makes it appear as if ACSA's are solely used by the US with other countries. However, some quick internet searches reveal the existence of several bilateral ACSA's without the US, for example:

While that list somehow ended up having a strong Japan focus, the point is clear - countries routinely form bilateral ACSA agreements that do not involve the US. Thus, this article is greatly inaccurate and does not give a correct description of current ACSA usage, and likely needs a large overhaul. This would probably look like:

  1. Rewriting introduction to be country-agnostic, focusing on description of generic ACSA's
  2. Expanding the history section to include significant ACSA's, both with and without the US
  3. Potentially creating a new section for US ACSA's, and maybe another section for non-US ACSA's - depends if there is enough content to warrant these sections, and if the amount of ACSA's that warrant mentioning makes the existence of such sections worthwhile (If not, content that would go here would likely just go in the history section).
  4. Adding more external links to more ACSA's examples

Tomiam8 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The History section of the page clearly narrows the focus to US usage of ACSAs and outlines the various laws and amendments that allows those exchanges to occur. New links were added to reinforce this focus on US Government utilization of ACSAs for logistical support.

Suggest renaming the page to include - US Government Utilization. Eliminate/move all references for other countries that have agreements not including the US Government, maybe dedicate another page to cover International ACSAs, not involving the US Government. Above links would suggest there is ample citations for this change.

KMOlmstead (talk) 7:45 AM(CDT), 5 September 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]