BeaverFever

No you don’t know what you’re talking about. Again. You still need a special type shell, bomb or rocket to deliver and disperse the agent, dummy. For example a warhead specifically designed to dispense an aerosol agent at the proper dispersion rate, altitude etc. What do you think they just pour a cup of sarin on a conventional shell? And none of those weapons or the facilities to produce them were in Iraq, period.

Chat GPT Conversation: Why do people say the uk in particular is captured by usa in geopolitics and how did it happen? When people say the UK is “captured” by the USA in geopolitics, they’re usually not claiming literal control. They mean something more subtle and structural: British foreign, defence, and intelligence policy is so tightly aligned with Washington that the UK has very little independent strategic room left—especially compared to France or even Germany. Here’s how that perception formed, and how it actually happened. What “captured” really means (and what it doesn’t) It does not mean: The UK is a puppet state The US gives direct orders Britain never disagrees (it sometimes does) It does mean: The UK’s security institutions are deeply integrated with the US Key decisions are constrained by the need to stay aligned Breaking with Washington would be institutionally costly, not just politically awkward Think path dependency, not conspiracy. Step 1: WWII hard-wired dependence 🇬🇧➡️🇺🇸 This is the foundation. By 1941: Britain was financially exhausted The empire was overstretched Survival depended on the US (Lend-Lease) After the war: Britain was bankrupt The US emerged as the dominant power The UK had to choose: decline alone, or anchor itself to American power It chose the latter. Step 2: The “special relationship” was real—but asymmetric 🤝 Early Cold War Britain did have leverage: Large global navy Nuclear weapons Imperial bases Elite intelligence services But over time: US capabilities exploded UK capabilities shrank The relationship stayed “special” culturally—but became one-sided structurally The UK kept access, but at the price of alignment. Step 3: Intelligence fusion locked it in 🕵️‍♂️ This is huge and often underappreciated. Five Eyes (US–UK–Canada–Australia–NZ) UK signals intelligence (GCHQ) is deeply integrated with NSA Shared databases, tasking, infrastructure Not just cooperation—co-production Result: UK intelligence effectiveness now depends on US systems Walking away would cripple British intelligence overnight France, by contrast, kept its intelligence more sovereign. Step 4: Nuclear dependence sealed it ☢️ Britain’s nuclear deterrent is often cited as the clearest example. UK Trident missiles are leased from the US Warheads are British—but delivery systems aren’t Testing, targeting, and maintenance are deeply US-linked This doesn’t mean the US can “turn them off” casually—but it means the deterrent is not fully sovereign. France again chose differently. Step 5: Suez (1956) broke the illusion of independence 🚨 This was the psychological turning point. UK + France invaded Egypt US said “stop” Britain’s economy was threatened via the dollar London folded within days The lesson absorbed by British elites: Never again oppose the US on a core strategic issue. From then on, disagreement became tactical, not strategic. Step 6: The UK redefined itself as America’s best ally 🎯 Rather than compete, Britain adapted. New role: Washington’s most reliable partner Bridge between US and Europe Junior co-designer of US-led coalitions This brought benefits: Intelligence access Military interoperability Diplomatic relevance beyond raw power But it also meant: Iraq (2003) Afghanistan Alignment on China and Russia —even when public opinion was hostile Step 7: Institutions now reinforce the alignment 🏛️ This is where “capture” becomes structural. British: Defence planning Procurement (F-35, P-8, Apache, etc.) Doctrine Officer career paths …are all optimized for US interoperability. Even if a future PM wanted independence: The machinery resists it The costs are immediate The benefits are long-term and uncertain That’s classic institutional capture. Why the UK more than others? Compared to France: France kept strategic autonomy (nukes, industry, doctrine) Accepted less access in exchange for sovereignty Compared to Germany: Germany is economically powerful but militarily constrained Hides behind NATO rather than fusing with the US The UK chose: Relevance through alignment It’s a rational choice—but it narrows options. Why this criticism has grown recently Three reasons: Iraq damaged trust Made the UK look like America’s “yes-man” Brexit removed the EU counterweight The US relationship became even more central US unpredictability (Trump era) Exposed how little leverage the UK actually has People noticed the imbalance more clearly. Bottom line The UK isn’t “captured” because it’s weak or naive. It’s “captured” because: WWII created dependency The Cold War deepened integration Intelligence and nuclear ties locked it in Institutions now assume US alignment as the default It’s less like occupation and more like a long marriage where one partner grew much bigger—and the house was built around them. If you want, I can also: Compare this to Canada’s situation (very similar, but quieter) Explain why France took a different path Or explore whether the UK could realistically decouple—and what it would cost Does uk really think if they said no to USA they would flick a kill switch on gchq or cut off service for their nukes? Short answer: no — British leaders do not believe the US would literally flip a kill switch on GCHQ or shut down Trident out of spite. That idea gets thrown around online, but it’s not how the relationship actually works. The real constraint is subtler — and more powerful. There is no red “OFF” switch 🔴 On both intelligence and nukes: GCHQ is sovereign: UK facilities, UK staff, UK legal authority Trident is operationally British: UK warheads, UK command authority The US cannot just push a button and disable them on a whim. Doing so would: Blow up Five Eyes Shatter US alliance credibility Probably end NATO as a functioning system Washington knows that. So why does the pressure still work? Because the dependency is systemic, not mechanical. 1. Intelligence: death by a thousand frictions 🕵️‍♂️ If the UK seriously broke with the US: What wouldn’t happen: No dramatic cutoff No public punishment What could happen: Slower data feeds Fewer taskings Less priority access More “national caveats” Quiet exclusion from the most sensitive programs None of this is illegal or shocking — it’s just bureaucratic gravity. Over time: GCHQ becomes less effective UK intelligence loses global reach Ministers get worse briefings That’s enough to deter defiance. 2. Trident: maintenance, certification, confidence ☢️ Again, not a kill switch — but: Missiles are from a shared US pool Testing and certification are joint Long-term sustainment assumes cooperation If relations soured badly: Support could become slower or more conditional Replacement timelines could slip Confidence in reliability (not control) erodes For a nuclear deterrent, confidence is everything. 3. The real fear is reputational, not technical 🧠 The deepest anxiety in Whitehall isn’t sabotage. It’s this: “If we stop being the US’s most reliable ally, we lose our seat — and we don’t have a Plan B.” France has a Plan B. The UK largely doesn’t. That makes caution rational. 4. Elites internalize the constraint Over decades, this becomes self-discipline: Officials avoid options that might upset Washington Policies are pre-aligned before they reach Cabinet “What will the Americans think?” becomes a filter, not a threat At that point, nobody needs to threaten anything. That’s what people mean by “capture.” 5. Has the UK ever said no anyway? Yes — quietly and early. Examples: Staying out of Vietnam Not joining certain US operations Pushing back privately on trade or China issues The key is how you say no: Early Low-key Without public grandstanding That keeps the machinery intact. Bottom line UK leaders don’t fear a literal kill switch. They fear: Gradual loss of access Reduced influence Becoming irrelevant while still dependent So alignment is chosen, not coerced — but it’s chosen under asymmetric consequences. If you want, next we can: Compare this to how France handles saying “no” Look at Australia’s much tighter US dependence post-AUKUS Or ask the uncomfortable question: what would actually happen if the UK openly defied the US on a major war today? Why would uk do something so foolish? Because from inside Whitehall, it doesn’t look foolish at all. It looks like the least-bad option in a narrow, ugly menu. What seems irrational from the outside is often defensive realism on the inside. 1. The UK is managing decline, not chasing glory This is the uncomfortable starting point. Post-1945, Britain faced a choice: Accept sharp, visible decline and retrench fast Or stretch relevance by riding a larger power The UK chose: “Stay in the room, even if we’re not running it.” That’s not hubris — it’s loss aversion. 2. The alternative paths were genuinely worse Option A: French-style autonomy 🇫🇷 Why it worked for France: Big domestic arms industry Political culture comfortable with independence Willingness to be isolated at times Why it’s hard for the UK: Hollowed-out industrial base Heavier financialization Political class optimized for alliance management, not autonomy Going French-style would require decades of painful rebuilding with no guarantee of success. Option B: European strategic pillar 🇪🇺 The UK flirted with this, but: Europe couldn’t agree on leadership France didn’t want a co-equal partner Germany didn’t want military leadership Brexit later burned the bridge So this path collapsed — partly by UK choice, partly by European reality. Option 😄 Middle-power retrenchment 🇨🇦-style This is the Canada model. Why the UK didn’t choose it: Global interests still existed (bases, territories, nukes) Political identity tied to “punching above weight” Fear of becoming just another European state That identity trap matters more than people admit. 3. Alignment buys insurance, not obedience 🛡️ From London’s perspective, alignment with the US buys: Nuclear credibility Intelligence reach Military interoperability Diplomatic amplification The UK isn’t trying to boss the US around. It’s trying to ensure the US shows up when it matters. That insurance feels worth the trade-offs. 4. The cost of saying “no” is front-loaded This is the killer incentive. Saying yes: costs are diffuse, delayed, often externalized Saying no: costs are immediate, visible, personal (careers, access) So systems drift toward compliance even if long-term outcomes are questionable. That’s not stupidity — it’s institutional logic. 5. Iraq wasn’t seen as “obedience” at the time This is important historically. In 2002–03, many UK elites believed: The US was going anyway Being inside the tent could moderate behavior Staying close preserved post-war influence They were wrong — but wrong in a way that made sense at the time. 6. Bureaucracies hate empty rooms 🏛️ If the UK steps back: France fills the space The US listens less British officials lose relevance For a state that defines itself by diplomacy and intelligence, irrelevance is existential. So they cling to proximity. 7. Capture isn’t stupidity — it’s habit No one wakes up and says: “Let’s subordinate ourselves.” It happens because: Each individual decision is rational The path dependence compounds Reversal looks scarier than continuation By the time the costs are obvious, the exit ramps are gone. Bottom line The UK didn’t do something foolish. It did something defensive, conservative, and deeply human: Minimize short-term risk Preserve status Avoid abrupt decline The tragedy isn’t that Britain aligned with the US — it’s that alignment slowly replaced strategy. If you want, we can flip the lens next: What would a genuinely independent UK strategy even look like today? Or which countries are now repeating the same trap? So uk is Americas yes man primarily because political culture believes there’s calue amd prestige but sometimes they’re afraid that they’ll lose military amd intelligence capability if they say no because they have integrated themselves so closely Yes — that’s a very accurate summary. I’d just sharpen it slightly so the weight is in the right place. The primary driver is culture and identity. The fear of capability loss is secondary — but it disciplines the culture. Put together, that’s what people mean by “yes-man.” 1. Prestige and self-image come first 🏛️ Inside British political and security culture there’s a deeply ingrained belief that: “We matter globally because we are the United States’ closest ally.” That belief delivers: Status Access Relevance A sense of continuity with great-power Britain So alignment isn’t experienced as submission — it’s experienced as membership. That’s why you see: Performative loyalty Rhetoric about “special relationship” Desire to be “first call” for Washington This part is voluntary. 2. Integration turns preference into constraint 🔧 Over decades, the UK designed its systems around that identity: Intelligence fused for efficiency Military built for US-led coalitions Nuclear deterrent intertwined with US infrastructure At first, this looked smart — cost-effective and powerful. But over time, it created exit costs. Now: Saying “no” isn’t just political It disrupts how the machinery works So alignment becomes the default, not the decision. 3. Fear isn’t about punishment — it’s about degradation 🧠 British leaders don’t fear revenge. They fear: Being quietly deprioritized Losing privileged access Having less credible forces and intelligence over time No drama. No threats. Just institutional cooling. That’s enough. 4. The UK internalized the discipline This is the key shift. At this stage: The US doesn’t need to pressure the UK British officials pre-align policy themselves “What will Washington think?” is baked in before debate That’s how capture becomes self-sustaining. 5. Why Canada feels different 🇨🇦 Canada avoided this because: It never tied prestige to proximity It kept alliance cooperation modular It accepted being a middle power So saying “no” doesn’t feel like identity loss. For the UK, it does. The clean takeaway The UK is America’s most reliable ally not because it’s coerced, but because: Political culture prizes access and prestige Deep integration raises the cost of dissent Capability dependence reinforces the habit Over time, alignment becomes identity So when critics say “yes-man,” they’re pointing at a system that rewards agreement and quietly punishes independence — even without anyone intending to. If you want, we can: Map exactly where UK policy autonomy still exists Compare this to Australia’s fast-track version Or ask whether this dynamic is reversible — and how But do they really have status, access, prestige, relevance or is this just an illusion? Short answer: it’s partly real, partly an illusion — and the illusion has grown as the reality shrank. That tension is exactly why the debate won’t die. Let’s separate myth from substance. What the UK really gets (this part is real) 1. Access — but at the working level, not the deciding one The UK genuinely has: Unusually deep day-to-day access to US officials Embedded officers in US commands Early visibility on US thinking British officials often hear things before other allies. But: This is situational awareness, not veto power You’re in the room — not running it Useful, but limited. 2. Intelligence quality boost 🕵️ This is real and valuable. Five Eyes integration gives UK intelligence global reach it couldn’t afford alone British assessments are better because of US data But: Influence flows less than information Access doesn’t equal steering outcomes 3. Military credibility by association 🎖️ UK forces are taken seriously because: They can plug straight into US operations They train and operate at US standards That buys respect — not control. What is mostly illusion 4. “Influence” over US strategy 🪞 This is where belief and reality diverge hardest. Examples: Iraq: UK advice didn’t moderate US policy Afghanistan: UK had tactical voice, not strategic sway China policy: UK alignment changes nothing The pattern: The US listens politely — then does what it was going to do anyway. That’s not capture. It’s hierarchy. 5. Prestige as an independent great power 🏰 The UK is treated as: A very capable ally Not a co-equal strategic actor Prestige persists rhetorically — but materially it’s faded. This is why critics call it nostalgia masquerading as strategy. 6. “Bridge to Europe” relevance 🌉 This used to be real. Post-Brexit: The US talks to Brussels directly The UK no longer brokers EU–US relations That pillar collapsed — but the self-image lingered. The uncomfortable truth The UK’s alignment still delivers efficiency and reassurance. But the marginal returns have fallen. The costs (loss of autonomy, reputational damage, policy lock-in) now rival — or exceed — the benefits. That’s why it feels illusory: The language of prestige hasn’t updated The structure has Why the illusion survives 1. It flatters elites Being “Washington’s closest ally” feels better than “Europe’s second-tier power.” 2. It avoids hard trade-offs Believing in influence avoids admitting: Capability gaps Industrial weakness Strategic downgrade 3. No clean alternative exists Without a clear Plan B, the current model persists by default. Bottom line The UK’s status is real at the technical level, thin at the strategic level, and inflated in the imagination. Access ≠ agency. Presence ≠ power. Familiarity ≠ influence. The danger isn’t that Britain gets nothing — it’s that it mistakes being close to power for having power. If you want, next we can: Rank UK influence vs France, Germany, Japan Or stress-test whether the US would actually miss the UK if alignment cooled Are there also economic factors in uk capture? Yes — there are economic factors, and they matter more than people usually admit. They don’t cause UK “capture” on their own, but they reinforce it and make exit feel dangerous. Think of economics as the cement that set around an already-aligned strategic frame. 1. Financialisation hollowed out strategic autonomy 💷 This is the deep structural one. Post-1980s Britain: Shifted from industrial capitalism → financial capitalism London became a global finance hub Manufacturing, defence industry, and sovereign supply chains shrank Result: The UK became very good at services And very bad at producing strategic things independently That makes: Defence autonomy harder Industrial decoupling scarier Dependence on allied supply chains (mostly US) more “rational” France made the opposite bet. Germany hedged. The UK doubled down on finance. 2. The City of London is tightly coupled to US power 🏦 This part is real and ongoing. Dollar clearing US banks, law firms, rating agencies Sanctions enforcement Capital markets access The City thrives because: It is inside the US-led financial order, not outside it. That creates elite incentives: Don’t antagonize Washington Don’t challenge sanctions regimes Don’t flirt with monetary or trade autonomy This isn’t fear — it’s business logic. 3. Defence procurement locks in dependence 🔩 UK defence buying choices have economic consequences. Examples: F-35 P-8 Apache Trident systems Each decision: Saves money short term Improves interoperability But drains domestic industrial capacity Over time: UK industry becomes subcontractor, not prime Sovereign alternatives disappear Independence becomes more expensive than dependence That’s economic capture via procurement. 4. Trade patterns reinforce Atlantic orientation 📦 Despite rhetoric about “Global Britain”: US is a top investment partner UK firms rely on US markets, listings, capital Tech, pharma, defence, finance are deeply US-linked Breaking alignment would: Create regulatory friction Spook investors Raise borrowing costs For a country with: Persistent current account deficits Heavy reliance on capital inflows …that risk looms large in policymaking. 5. Sanctions and extraterritorial US law ⚖️ This is subtle but powerful. US sanctions regimes: Reach into UK banks and firms Are enforced through dollar systems Leave little room for dissent UK governments rarely challenge this because: The City can’t afford to be on the wrong side Compliance is cheaper than confrontation Economic compliance bleeds into political alignment. 6. Brexit intensified the tilt 📉 Brexit removed the UK’s main economic counterweight to the US. Before: EU provided scale and regulatory leverage UK could shelter inside European decisions After: The US relationship became more central The UK became a rule-taker, not rule-setter Dependence became more visible — and harder to escape This wasn’t inevitable, but it was predictable. 7. Elites experience alignment as stability 🧠 From inside the system: US alignment = market confidence Market confidence = currency stability Currency stability = political survival So even non-security decisions get filtered through: “Will this upset Washington or US markets?” That’s economic discipline reinforcing strategic discipline. What economics does not explain Important to be precise. Economics alone does not explain: Iraq Military over-alignment Intelligence fusion Those are cultural and strategic choices. But economics: Makes saying “no” feel risky Makes alternatives feel unaffordable Turns alignment into the default safe choice Bottom line UK “capture” isn’t just about tanks and spies. It’s also about: A finance-heavy economy Weak industrial depth Dollar-centric markets Procurement shortcuts Post-Brexit isolation Together, they create a situation where: Strategic independence feels expensive, disruptive, and frightening — even when alignment delivers diminishing returns. So yes — economics doesn’t drive the car, but it keeps the steering wheel locked slightly toward Washington.

The UK’s nuclear deterrent relies on US support – but there are no other easy alternatives Now that Washington is potentially an unreliable ally, the UK needs to revisit its nuclear strategy. But going alone is costly, and partnering with France poses its own risks. In day-to-day operations, the UK’s Trident programme is completely independent from the US. The British Prime Minister can launch the missiles without any external input. However, while operationally independent, Trident is a US-built missile system and the UK’s nuclear capabilities currently rely on the US in several ways. The UK invested in Trident’s research and development, and purchased the missiles from the US under the terms of the modified Polaris sales agreement, updated in 1982 to also cover Trident. The Trident missiles rely on the US for maintenance which is done by the manufacturer Lockheed Martin; missiles have to return to the US for scheduled maintenance every few years. The UK also purchases the aeroshells required for producing nuclear warheads from the US. The US-UK mutual defence agreement which underpins this cooperation – including the missile maintenance – was extended indefinitely in 2024and includes clauses that make it difficult to terminate the arrangement. However, there is still the risk that the US could decide to ignore the agreement or threaten to do so as a form of leverage. … https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/uks-nuclear-deterrent-relies-us-support-there-are-no-other-easy-alternatives

Because there were no WMD in Iraq for him to work on, obviously. DUH. Talk about not using critical thinking, Einstein! I find it laughable that you still cling to this massively debunked claim nearly 20 years after it was debunked 6 ways from Sunday Are you really that clueless about Iraq’s history? You must be young. Yes Ronald Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam in the 80s which he later used to attack the Kurds. But then he got bombed and invaded jn a little war call Desert Storm ever heard of it? As a result his arsenal was destroyed and the UN had a continuous US-led weapons monitoring and inspection program in place from then right up until Bush Jr’s invasion. There were no WMD or delivery systems, period. You completely lack not only critical thinking skills but also basic knowledge of well publicized facts

Being a freak behind closed doors is not better than openly being a freak And BTW that teacher went on a leave of absence and is now back to dressing like a normal man so obviously got whatever mental health help he needed.

I would say the MAGA losers who knowingly put these incompetent kleptocrats in charge to run the country into the ground are the ones who hate America

How do you think they put that droplet on you, run up to you on the battlefield with a squirt gun? The weapon system that delivers the agent is more complex to produce and harder to hide than the agent itself. Plus the agent still needs to be stored under proper climate controlled conditions and it does degrade over time . Improperly stored or poorly produced Sarin can degrade within a few months. Properly made and stored sarin still has a shelf life of only 10 years or less. So it’s not as easy to hide as some would think.

That is fake news. Syria has produced its own chemical weapons domestically for decades, which is not difficult for governments to do if their country has basic industrial capabilities Stip propagating misinformation.

I am not so sure the UK’s nukes are truly independent of USA. Both the missiles and the submarines they are launched from are dependent upon US technology and ongoing support. The Brits foolishly pursued “deep integration” with the US decades ago and now their strategic military and intelligence capabilities are basically fully dependent upon the US.

😂😂😂 There’s ZERO vetting in the Trump administration other than who has offered his family the biggest bribes and who has kissed his ass the most in public.

Another day, another supposedly pious godly conservative exposed as the very kind sexual deviant they claim to protecting the world from Noem was already a shitshow at DHS. Let’s just do a quick recap before we get to the latest: She’s been having a years-long affair with longtime Trump minion Corey Lewandowski (who is also married to someone else) and had him appointed as her “special advisor” at DHS. Despite having no official title authority Lewandowski effectively made himself the #2 in the department ordering people around and firing them with impunity. The 2 of them created a toxic workplace with a culture of abuse, verbally abusing and degrading staff in public, forcing them to take lie detector tests when they didn’t like what they were being told, misappropriating department resources for themselves, living together in Coast Guard executive housing (despite both already having their own homes and being married to other people) and flying around in Coast Guard 737s for their personal use Lewandowski fired a coast guard 737 pilot because Noem forgot a blanket on the plane and somehow that was the pilots fault but then they rehired him ehen they realized there was nobody to fly them home. Not to mention questionable contracts issued to friends and donors Just total incompetence and greed and malevolence on full display. What else donyou expect from a woman who literally shoots puppies in the face? Now we know hilariously that Noem’s holier than thou cuckold husband is in to a fetish called “bimbofication” where he dresses up as a “bimbo” complete with fake boobs and gets verbally degraded by a dominatrix

They have been given a new mandate for security and surveillance and as a result have acquired the civil surveillance aircraft and personnel of other civilian departments, including a MALE UAS that is actually going to be DND’s only MALE UAS until the RCAF’s MQ9s are operational a few years from now. I am sure there is more to come as well

Well we know Saddam didn’t have it the last time Republicans tried to use that as an excuse to wage an unnecessary war of choice. How many soldiers have to die for Republicans’ endless lust for blood and oil?

There’s nothing relevant in the post you linked, just more of your bluster and false accusations when you have no point to make and no valid arguments.

The coast guard’s move to DND is not in dispute. That is a legitimate move and is what most other countries do with their Coast Guard. THEREFORE it’s legitimate defence spending. Your suggestion was that other other illegitimate expenses were included, which is false.

What’s hilarious is that the Republicans claim to be so concerned about the budget and the deficit they routinely don’t pay air traffic controllers or airport security personnel but they don’t even bat an eyelash at spending a billion dollars a day for an open-ended and unnecessary war of choice with no clear objective or plan or congressional authorization. Its just “oh well whatevs lol”

Oh yeah Obama was so terrible, inherited an economy that absolutely economically destroyed under bush/cheney and republican congress and their failing foreign wars left it in good shape for Donald Trump while making healthcare accessible to tens of millions of citizens along the way. How terrible

You are such lying failure. You didn’t say Carney met Maxwell at a concert years after Epstein was convicted. You falsely claimed he was a longtime acquaintance of Epstein no different than Trump and that his campaign admitted it. Which is a Lie And if your ADHD-riddled brain had actually bothered to read the article instead of just brainlessly copy-pasting the headline you would see it says Carney is NOT mentioned ian any epstein email correspondence. His name is only found in news articles from financial news outlets that Epstein had subscribed to email alerts for. Thanks for reminding us waht a confused and/or dishonest twat you are.

Nothing was “moved over into the account of defence spending” you clueless simp.

That’s true but it’s also true that he orders them on these unwinnable Quixotic nutjob crusades like persecuting his political enemies with baseless prosecutions and validating his batshit conspiracies so evn though they would fail under the best circumstances he also sets them up for failure. Such is the behaviour of personality cults led by an incompetent nutjob.

You think you know about the scandalous trees but NATO doesn’t? AND If you think we could just earn our 2% boyscout badge at any time by simply lying to NATO wouldn’t we have been doing that all these years?

Progress in disproving whatever half-baked claim you’re trying to make?

Yeah the routine of telling the truth while you repeat your debunked claims over and over and ignore all facts and logic that conflicts with your ideology. There is no evidence that these expenses are “just now being scraped up” or haven’t been included in previous years or wouldn’t normally be included. Those are all made up suppositions by you. And YOU STIILL avoid and hide from the fact that it is NATO who decided that our spending is compliant with the 2% goal so NATO must be ok with it right??

Nope none of what you say is true. Just like when you falsely said the military spending was audited and it was proven that Canada didn’t resch 2%. Just like when you said there were photos with carney and Epstein and carney admitting to being an acquaintance. Just like when you said Trump ensorsed carney for PM and told Canadians “he wanted Carney in”. Just like a dozen other completely bogus claims you have made. None of that happened, none of it is true

NORAD commander says F-35-type aircraft not needed to defend North America Gregory M. Guillot made the comments at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 19. Published Mar 30, 2026 The U.S. commander of NORAD says fifth-generation fighters such as the F-35 aren’t needed to defend North America, undercutting the central claim by supporters of the aircraft that Canada requires such jets to protect the country. The Canadian Forces has emphasized that the F-35 is part of its plans to modernize the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD. Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jennie Carignan, has also stated that the U.S.-built fighter jet is needed to defend the Arctic. Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet has also stressed the need for such fifth-generation aircraft to protect Canada. But U.S. Air Force General Gregory M. Guillot, who heads the joint U.S.-Canada NORAD, says such advanced jets aren’t needed by his organization. “Frankly we don’t need fifth (generation) to defend our borders,” Guillot told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 19. The NORAD commander said fifth-generation jets, considered the most advanced type of aircraft, had a role to play in attacking overseas targets. “Those capabilities are better used overseas where their stealth, air to ground weapons and penetration capability are needed,” Guillot added. He said what was needed for NORAD were more fourth-generation fighter jets that had been modernized. Guillot gave the example of the F-15EX, an aircraft made by Boeing and in service with the U.S. and Israel. Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Carignan did not provide a comment about Guillot’s statement. Speiser-Blanchet did not comment about the statement, either. In 2023, the Liberal government announced it was purchasing 88 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin in the U.S. But Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the F-35 purchase in mid-March 2025 in the wake of threats against Canadian sovereignty by U.S. President Donald Trump. At this point, the federal government has only committed to buy 16 F-35s. Carney will be making the final decision on whether to proceed with the additional purchase of another 72 of the stealth fighters, but it is unclear when that will happen. Saab, a Swedish company, has offered Canada the Gripen fighter jet as an alternative to the F-35. On Jan. 28, the National Post reported the Liberal government was considering purchasing 40 F-35s in total and complementing those with the purchase of as many as 80 Gripens. The Canadian Forces has recommended Canada proceed to buy all 88 F-35s. Canadian military leaders are extremely close to their U.S. counterparts and they see the F-35 as pivotal in further integrating the two forces. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But the fighter jet file is an extremely sensitive one for the Carney government and the Canadian Forces has been trying to limit the amount of information the public is told about the F-35 deal. The Royal Canadian Air Force and Department of National Defence refused to answer questions from the Ottawa Citizen about recent payments made for the systems and parts that will be used to build another 14 F-35s for Canada. CBC News first reported details of those payments on Feb. 10. In addition, the Canadian military has refused to release a photo of Speiser-Blanchetsigning the fuselage of Canada’s first F-35, fearing it could undercut messaging from the Liberal government that the jet review was ongoing, according to sources. Problems have also emerged with the Block 4 version of the F-35, the type that Canada plans to buy. Block 4 is at least $6 billion over budget and five years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog organization, revealed on Sept. 3, 2025. The U.S. has been pressuring Canada to continue with its F-35 purchase, which is key to supporting American high-tech jobs in the defence sector. In a Jan. 26 interview with CBC, Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador in Ottawa, warned Canadians they could face dire consequences if the Carney government didn’t buy the F-35. He stated the NORAD agreement would have to be changed, suggesting that Gripens wouldn’t be as “interchangeable, interoperable” with U.S.-operated F-35s. But Bill Sweetman, a U.S. aviation writer and author of a book about the F-35, said on the social media site X on Jan. 26 that Hoekstra was “babbling nonsense.” “Canada has been flying different aircraft from the USAF in NORAD for 40+ years and controls its jets through Winnipeg, and the F-35’s stealth is irrelevant in NORAD because Russian bombers do not have air-to-air radar,” wrote Sweetman, author of Trillion Dollar Trainwreck: How the F-35 Hollowed Out the U.S. Air Force https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/norad-f-35-figher-jet-north-america