6 Comments
User's avatar
Gord Doctorow's avatar

The world is awash in weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are at the ready as the U.S., Israel, and Russia stir up conflict in the name of "defence", which is an Orwellian term for war and reckless strife. Canada needs a solution to climate destruction, housing for so many, good jobs, aid to its Indigenous people for clean water and sovereignty, restoration of civil liberties for dissidents, defence and improvement of medicare, etc. All these things are defence. Military acquisitions and spending are contra-indicated.

Jim Carmichael's avatar

The 100% Gripens option sounds like the safest alternative for the conditions in the Canadian Arctic. This would also be in the best interests of moving Canada away from dependence on the USA, a high priority objective that I fully subscribe to.

Bob Stuart's avatar

It is conceivable that a squadron of Gripens might get used to thwart evil, but I strongly suspect that unmanned aircraft give a lot more bang for the buck now. On the whole, though, I'd prefer a entire nation well prepared to make invading too costly. It would help if we got our training by taking our country back from the oil interests.

Sibylle Walke's avatar

Why do we need fighter planes in the first place? Do we not see the illustration and the futility and longterm cultural and ecological destructiveness of war and the ineffectiveness and outrageous expense of fighter planes?

Frances Brady's avatar

Any situation that involves dependence on the U.S. must be avoided, for obvious reasons.

Frances Brady

Marilyn Larocque, RHSJ's avatar

My choice was only to buy Gripens. The chance to not have crashes with F - 35 's is high.

The whole world is in alert. We are promoting PEACE not WAR.