suckers.....
"Instead of resolving international conflicts through diplomacy, fighter jets are designed to destroy infrastructure and kill people. Canada's current fleet of fighter jets has bombed Libya, Iraq, Serbia, and Syria. Many innocent people were killed directly or as a result of the destruction of civilian infrastructure and those operations prolonged conflicts and/or contributed to refugee crises."
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Wednesday the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and Canadian Voice of Women for Peace released a public letter opposing Canada’s plan “to spend tens of billions of dollars on unnecessary, dangerous, climate destroying fighter jets.” Signatories include Canadian musicians Neil Young, Teagan and Sarah and Sarah Harmer as well as environmentalists David Suzuki and Naomi Klein. The No new fighter jets for Canada statement is also signed by authors Michael Ondaatje Yann Martel and Gabor Maté as well as sitting MPs, former MPs, city councillors, a Senator, MPP and former UN ambassador. Prominent international figures such as Roger Waters, Daryl Hannah and Noam Chomsky have also backed a call addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The jets are expected to cost about $19 billion but the full life cycle cost of the planes will be closer to $77 billion. These resources could fund clean drinking water on reserves, an exhaustive search of all unmarked graves at residential ‘schools’ and plenty of indigenous run cooperative housing. Or “$77 billion could turbocharge a just transition away from fossil fuels”, notes the letter.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/21/defund-the-canadian-military/
I would have like to have seen tegan and sara attempt diplomancy with milosevic, or Neil young give al assad the whats what.
I'm somewhat on the fence. There is a genuine reason to have an air force that is reasonably well equipped. The current jet fleet is aging out, so will need to be replaced.
However, these either/or statements like "that money could be used for ..." are patently dishonest. The budget allows for money to be spent on many thousands of projects and expenditures, so the implied trade-off isn't fair.
Posted by: KenN
I'm somewhat on the fence. There is a genuine reason to have an air force that is reasonably well equipped. The current jet fleet is aging out, so will need to be replaced.
However, these either/or statements like "that money could be used for ..." are patently dishonest. The budget allows for money to be spent on many thousands of projects and expenditures, so the implied trade-off isn't fair.
It is a bad faith way of discussing any issue. Why not put every cent of tax money into fighting climate change, or curing cancer?
Having said that, I don't think this particular jet is a wise purchase and the maintenance is going to be ridiculously expensive. I am guessing there is a lot of politics concerning American relations that goes into it. We still get around on new 747s, so I am sure a newer version of the FA-18 with modern electronics would work just fine. They are still the coolest looking jet IMO as well.
Seen one of those last Friday trying to buttfuck a buncha' Snowbirds. Flew right over our heads at teh north end of 2 Rd. Twice.
Posted by: three-sheets
I would have like to have seen tegan and sara attempt diplomancy with milosevic, or Neil young give al assad the whats what.
al assad's a hero to his people...
Forum jump:
