Swedish Griffen vs American (Trump) F-35

[taxme]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

WOW...once again with nothing LOL LOL LOL

Sad little LOSER..HA HA HA

Except I am glad I am once again your comrade LOL LOL LOL

com·rade:

 

noun: comrade; plural noun: comrades

a companion who shares one's activities or is a fellow member of an organization.

a friend who is frequently in the company of another

synonyms: associate, companion, familiar, fellow.  

an intimate friend or associate : companion

 

On the contrary. It is me that is waiting for you to give me something. You are the big LOSER here and not me because you are the one who refuses to give me anything that is good about your dear Marxist comrade hero Marx Carnage other than your typical LOSER lip. 

There is a difference between calling someone a Canadian comrade and the other one calling some one a communist comrade, comrade Stalin. So no, you are not my comrade either way, comrade Stalin. Chuckle-chuckle, comrade Stalin. 

Hey, good news. comrade Stalin. I went out and bought myself another new chart to start putting more of those lovely  down arrows that you keep giving me. I will be expecting one more for this post. Thanks comrade Stalin. 😁

[August1991]

Trump made Carney.

And Carney is not going to buy a Swedish jet.

=====

If I were a Poilievre & PSPP, I would stand up for this country.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

WOW...did you come up with that all by yourself????  HA HA HA

Speaking of original lines.....   You never miss a chance to prove you're an adolescent teen do you    

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, taxme said:

On the contrary......

There is a difference between calling someone a Canadian comrade and the other one calling some one a communist comrade, comrade Stalin. So no, you are not my comrade either way, comrade Stalin. Chuckle-chuckle, comrade Stalin. 

Hey, good news. comrade Stalin. I went out and bought myself another new chart to start putting more of those lovely  down arrows that you keep giving me. I will be expecting one more for this post. Thanks comrade Stalin. 😁

Except I am glad I am once again your comrade LOL LOL LOL

com·rade:

 

noun: comrade; plural noun: comrades

a companion who shares one's activities or is a fellow member of an organization.

a friend who is frequently in the company of another

synonyms: associate, companion, familiar, fellow.  

an intimate friend or associate : companion

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Speaking of original lines.....   You never miss a chance to prove you're an adolescent teen do you    

Awww , being bested by a teen is still so embarrassing for you...as it should be. HA HA HA

You must be a pedophile to keep playing with teens and children so much and brag about it LOL LOL LOL

You and some of your buddies are just the ALL AROUND LOSERS 

Edited December 6, 2025 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Awww , being bested by a teen is still so embarrassing for you...as it should be. HA HA HA

LOL i suppose a teen might lay awake at night convincing himself he 'bested' someone that he didn't   It would be a very teen thing to do  

As i've told you, there is no 'besting' for me, i'm not in competition with you. I just point and laugh at your antics    You think you 'win' the same way a dog who manages to catch his own tail does   

[John Stone]

......... the professional ...........

... the rest

..................potential political decision

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, John Stone said:

......... the professional ...........

... the rest

..................potential political decision

All government purchasing is a potentially political decision.

Were you unaware of that? You seem to be suggesting that politics shouldn't play a role in political purchases?

[John Stone]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All government purchasing is a potentially political decision.

Were you unaware of that? You seem to be suggesting that politics shouldn't play a role in political purchases?

We're talking about defense of the country and supplying the best equipment to those willing to pay the supreme sacrifice. 

There is no doubt that the final decision will be political to a certain degree - more the pity. 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL i suppose a LOSER might lay awake at night thinking about playing with kids

There you are again...playing with kids...hey pedophile...making you feel superior???

LOSER LOL LOL LOL

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, John Stone said:

We're talking about defense of the country and supplying the best equipment to those willing to pay the supreme sacrifice. 

 

Hogwash. 

There is no gov't department anywhere that we get the 'best equipment' that they want and there's a hell of a lot more lives on the line in some of those cases. 

23,000 canadians died waiting for treatment last year alone. 23 thousand.  In contrast, do you know how many soldiers we lost in combat in the last 10 years? Pretty much ZERO. 

So we don't give doctors everything they want because we can't afford it, but we're supposed to give the military the absolute best of the best because.... their lives are worth more or something? Don't think so. 

the military deserves to be well equipped and trained. That is true. But there are other considerations, including the politics of relying on the states which is a HORRIBLE idea as events have shown, the benefits of establishing military development relationships with others, the economic benefits involved and other practical considerations. 

And yes the military might not care about all of those, but that's why they don't get the final decision.

It's very important that our leaders listen carefully to the experts from the military. And it's very important that both they and the military consider where the next threats are going to come from (and sorry but the politicians are actually even more up to speed on that than the military is, as wars are a political choice). 

But in the end the final decisions must take into account a wide range of factors including military, political, economic and future relationships. 

That's the way it is. 

 

[John Stone]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Hogwash. 

There is no gov't department anywhere that we get the 'best equipment' that they want and there's a hell of a lot more lives on the line in some of those cases. 

23,000 canadians died waiting for treatment last year alone. 23 thousand.  In contrast, do you know how many soldiers we lost in combat in the last 10 years? Pretty much ZERO. 

So we don't give doctors everything they want because we can't afford it, but we're supposed to give the military the absolute best of the best because.... their lives are worth more or something? Don't think so. 

the military deserves to be well equipped and trained. That is true. But there are other considerations, including the politics of relying on the states which is a HORRIBLE idea as events have shown, the benefits of establishing military development relationships with others, the economic benefits involved and other practical considerations. 

And yes the military might not care about all of those, but that's why they don't get the final decision.

It's very important that our leaders listen carefully to the experts from the military. And it's very important that both they and the military consider where the next threats are going to come from (and sorry but the politicians are actually even more up to speed on that than the military is, as wars are a political choice). 

But in the end the final decisions must take into account a wide range of factors including military, political, economic and future relationships. 

That's the way it is. 

 

 

'Sorry, that's the way it is'

Sounds like a good epitaph for someone defending your country.

Of course politics plays a part, however that is no excuse for you to agree with it? 

That is what is disgraceful. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

'Sorry, that's the way it is'

Sounds like a good epitaph for someone defending your country.

Why would that be a good epitaph?

Sounds like you didn't know what to say and didn't like the answer so rather than make a rational argument you've made a stupid statement that you thought sounded good.

Quote

Of course politics plays a part, however that is no excuse for you to agree with it? 

It is absolutely an "excuse" for anyone to agree with it.  You can't say that politics is "of course" part of the process and then disagree with people looking at the political part of the process

Political considerations must be taken into account. War at the end of the day is a political tool.

Quote

That is what is disgraceful. 

Only if you're a child with no concept of how anything works outside of GI Joe comics. 

The nation security comes from a lot of different things, not just the military. Our economic influence plays a big role in our security, our partners both economic and defense, and a lot of other factors.

As I said to another poster here about 27,000 people died last year waiting for medical treatments, and we seem to accept that as being perfectly fine. Meanwhile zero military staff died in the line of duty in combat in the last decade, and only about 147 in the decade previously.

So as far as saving lives go we have other things we could be spending money on.

What we need to do is define the missions that we see likely to happen and then pick the military equipment that is sufficient to conduct those likely missions effectively. That may not be the very best of the best, and that's okay. It does have to be adequate to the task but that's not the same thing

[August1991]

On 12/6/2025 at 10:08 PM, CdnFox said:

....

23,000 canadians died waiting for treatment last year alone. 23 thousand.  In contrast, do you know how many soldiers we lost in combat in the last 10 years? Pretty much ZERO. 

So we don't give doctors everything they want because we can't afford it, but we're supposed to give the military the absolute best of the best because.... their lives are worth more or something? Don't think so. 

....

 

Good point.

Some 100 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. For what?

Surely there is a better way to make our health care system work, and make our military work.

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Good point.

Some 100 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. For what?

more importantly if we had had different fighters would they have still died? Absolutely.

I don't even know when the last time we lost a pilot was other than an accident. When was the last combat loss of a Canadian fighter?

We need a clear understanding of what kind of job we expect the soldiers to do and we need gear that will allow them to do that job. But that does not mean that absolute very best of the best in all circumstances and if we tried to The consequences would be more severe than any possible loss of life to the pilots.

And one of the factors that we have to consider is that America is no longer a reliable ally. And nobody on the pro 35 Argument has been able to address that other than to say essentially oh don't worry about it we hope things will change someday and it'll magically go back to the way it was

[John Stone]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why would that be a good epitaph?

Sounds like you didn't know what to say and didn't like the answer so rather than make a rational argument you've made a stupid statement that you thought sounded good.

It is absolutely an "excuse" for anyone to agree with it.  You can't say that politics is "of course" part of the process and then disagree with people looking at the political part of the process

Political considerations must be taken into account. War at the end of the day is a political tool.

Only if you're a child with no concept of how anything works outside of GI Joe comics. 

The nation security comes from a lot of different things, not just the military. Our economic influence plays a big role in our security, our partners both economic and defense, and a lot of other factors.

As I said to another poster here about 27,000 people died last year waiting for medical treatments, and we seem to accept that as being perfectly fine. Meanwhile zero military staff died in the line of duty in combat in the last decade, and only about 147 in the decade previously.

So as far as saving lives go we have other things we could be spending money on.

What we need to do is define the missions that we see likely to happen and then pick the military equipment that is sufficient to conduct those likely missions effectively. That may not be the very best of the best, and that's okay. It does have to be adequate to the task but that's not the same thing

[Venandi]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And one of the factors that we have to consider is that America is no longer a reliable ally. And nobody on the pro 35 Argument has been able to address that other than to say essentially oh don't worry about it we hope things will change someday and it'll magically go back to the way it was

You're right about tax payers and politicians having the final say... that's just how it works whether people like it or not. 

As to US proprietary control over all things F35, it was always a valid concern and it was factored into the previous selection process... most senior RCAF Officers acknowledge it, they don't like it anymore than you and I do, but nonetheless, the two previous selection efforts favoured the F35 in spite of it.

This third incarnation is politically motived (nothing wrong with that BTW) but it finds us re-debating the same issues that were previously examined and decided on. There's an additional twist here too IMO, as a result of popular dislike for Trump we seem to have decided that interoperability is now less important than it was yesterday and the horror of a mixed fleet is now less horrible as well. If we are going that route (which will take 40 years to walk BTW) I hope it isn't motivated by a collective dislike of Trump... I think that will pass very soon after he does. 

So, while your point above is commonly shared and worthy of consideration, I think it holds more sway in political circles than it does in military ones. The US has a vested interest in NORAD and they've invested pretty heavily in it. That commitment has been self sustaining over decades despite other political blips and past trade disputes.

For good or ill, most military folks see that regular combined training continues, the sharing of intelligence / information remains intact and US support for cooperation in matters of mutual defence remains strong. As a result, they"re more inclined to look at all things Trump as a bump in a long road that won't be paved until he's gone anyway. 

Edited December 8, 2025 by Venandi

[ironstone]

Like most people posting in here, I'm no expert in the field of aviation. But from what I've read on this subject, the F-35 seems like the better choice for Canada.

There is something else that must be considered. Many of Mark Carney's major policy initiatives just so happen to be beneficial to Brookfield. As we all know, he has a considerable amount of shares (mostly in American companies). If you scroll down to page 10 of this link, you'll see that Carney has shares in Lockheed-Martin, who build the F-35.  https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/Lists/Declarations/Attachments/43657/Appendix Summary Statement - Annexe Declaration Sommaire.pdf

This fact alone is probably the most important consideration with this huge procurement.

This video was pretty interesting. Both former fighter pilots discussing the pros and cons of each jet.

 

Edited December 8, 2025 by ironstone

[ExFlyer]

36 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Like most people posting in here, I'm no expert in the field of aviation. But from what I've read on this subject, the F-35 seems like the better choice for Canada.

There is something else that must be considered. Many of Mark Carney's major policy initiatives just so happen to be beneficial to Brookfield. As we all know, he has a considerable amount of shares (mostly in American companies). If you scroll down to page 10 of this link, you'll see that Carney has shares in Lockheed-Martin, who build the F-35.  https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/Lists/Declarations/Attachments/43657/Appendix Summary Statement - Annexe Declaration Sommaire.pdf

This fact alone is probably the most important consideration with this huge procurement.

This video was pretty interesting. Both former fighter pilots discussing the pros and cons of each jet.

 

If you chased down everyones RRSP's, TFSA's or other investments, you will find all sorts of companies that those investments have shares in.

Even your bank account spend your money on shares the banks invest in. 

Nothing personal...just the business of investing.

You say that "Many of Mark Carney's major policy initiatives just so happen to be beneficial to Brookfield." That is quite an accusation. Do you have definitive proof of this??

 

Brookfield Corporation, a massive global alternative asset manager that invests in real assets like infrastructure, renewable power, real estate, private equity, and credit, managing over $1 trillion for institutions and individuals worldwide. They operate as owners and operators of large businesses, leveraging deep expertise to build long-term wealth, with significant holdings in essential global sectors and a major presence in sustainable energy"

Lastly, did Harper (or his investments) have shares in Lockheed Martin?? His government spent tens of millions of dollars every year to be part of the F35 development program. 

"Canada began investing in the F-35 development program, specifically the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program,in 1997"

[ironstone]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

If you chased down everyones RRSP's, TFSA's or other investments, you will find all sorts of companies that those investments have shares in.

Even your bank account spend your money on shares the banks invest in. 

Nothing personal...just the business of investing.

You say that "Many of Mark Carney's major policy initiatives just so happen to be beneficial to Brookfield." That is quite an accusation. Do you have definitive proof of this??

 

Brookfield Corporation, a massive global alternative asset manager that invests in real assets like infrastructure, renewable power, real estate, private equity, and credit, managing over $1 trillion for institutions and individuals worldwide. They operate as owners and operators of large businesses, leveraging deep expertise to build long-term wealth, with significant holdings in essential global sectors and a major presence in sustainable energy"

Lastly, did Harper (or his investments) have shares in Lockheed Martin?? His government spent tens of millions of dollars every year to be part of the F35 development program. 

"Canada began investing in the F-35 development program, specifically the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program,in 1997"

I am just pointing out a number of Carney's big initiatives will benefit Brookfield, and therefore, himself. Modular nuclear reactors-Brookfield, modular homes- Brookfield, heat pumps-Brookfield, carbon capture and other net-zero schemes- Brookfield(in a MASSIVE way) to name some. I'm not sure if any other Prime Minister in our history has had as many conflicts of interest as Mark Carney currently has. 

This channel does more of a deep-dive into Carney's many conflicts of interest.

 

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20250410/281938843746045

In 2023, Brook­field spent US$5 bil­lion to acquire HomeServe, a Brit­ish home repair mul­tina­tional that has leaned hard into heat pump refur­bish­ments.

In 2023, Brook­field spent US$5 bil­lion to acquire HomeServe, a Brit­ish home repair mul­tina­tional that has leaned hard into heat pump refur­bish­ments.

Car­ney's links to HomeServe have got him into trouble as recently as Octo­ber, when Bri­tain's the Tele­graph repor­ted that Car­ney had been act­ively lob­by­ing the Brit­ish gov­ern­ment to increase heat pump sub­sidies on Brook­field's behalf.

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, John Stone said:

Ahhh  so nothing intelligent to say and you can't refute anything i said  LOLOL

 I notice you don't seem to be able to express yourself except with pictures, would this conversation be easier for you if i wrote my replies in dr seuss rhymes?  

[ExFlyer]

14 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I am just pointing out a number of Carney's big initiatives will benefit Brookfield, and therefore, himself. Modular nuclear reactors-Brookfield, modular homes- Brookfield, heat pumps-Brookfield, carbon capture and other net-zero schemes- Brookfield(in a MASSIVE way) to name some. I'm not sure if any other Prime Minister in our history has had as many conflicts of interest as Mark Carney currently has. 

This channel does more of a deep-dive into Carney's many conflicts of interest.

 

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20250410/281938843746045

In 2023, Brook­field spent US$5 bil­lion to acquire HomeServe, a Brit­ish home repair mul­tina­tional that has leaned hard into heat pump refur­bish­ments.

In 2023, Brook­field spent US$5 bil­lion to acquire HomeServe, a Brit­ish home repair mul­tina­tional that has leaned hard into heat pump refur­bish­ments.

Car­ney's links to HomeServe have got him into trouble as recently as Octo­ber, when Bri­tain's the Tele­graph repor­ted that Car­ney had been act­ively lob­by­ing the Brit­ish gov­ern­ment to increase heat pump sub­sidies on Brook­field's behalf.

 

It is sometimes difficult when a company like Brookfield, a leading global investment firm" which invests in so many things, pays it's investors can be held away from any dealings or contracts with any government or company that the companies they have invested in do. . They buy and sell companies for it's investors.

I am sure many people, politicians and normal people also hold some sort of investment in Bell, Rogers, Blackrock JP Morgan or whatever and have no idea what the companies are invested in and how they deal with their clients.

Yes, Carney was CEO of one of the largest investment firms in the world and I am sure he was paid stock share as part of his salary but, no one can ban Brookfield or any of the companies it owns or has shares in from bidding on any contracts.

I am pointing out, investing in anything can potentially put anyone in some conflict of interest if you want to dig deep enough. Realistically though, if the investments are in a blind trust and if the evaluation of the bids are done at arms length (and bidders are not even known) and basically in secret, no one individual has any influence in any way. 

Edited December 8, 2025 by ExFlyer

[ironstone]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

It is sometimes difficult when a company like Brookfield, a leading global investment firm" which invests in so many things, pays it's investors can be held away from any dealings or contracts with any government or company. They buy and sell companies for it's investors.

I am sure many people, politicians and normal people also hold some sort of investment in Bell, Rogers, Blackrock JP Morgan or whatever and have no idea what the companies are invested in and how they deal with their clients.

Yes, Carney was CEO of one of the largest investment firms in the world and I am sure he was paid stock share as part of his salary but, no one can ban Brookfield or any of the companies it owns or has shares in from bidding on any contracts.

I am pointing out, investing in anything can potentially put anyone in some conflict of interest if you want to dig deep enough. Realistically though, if the investments are in a blind trust and if the evaluation of the bids are done at arms length (and bidders are not even known) and basically in secret, no one individual has any influence in any way. 

Politicians of all stripes have an uncanny knack for accumulating a lot of wealth while they are in office, well beyond their political salaries. On the debate stage, Carney had publicly singled out and praised a particular company(Westinghouse) that he has shares in. Carney is fully aware of which companies he has shares in and therefore which policy directions will boost those shares.

I counted at least 5 major US oil companies that Carney has shares in from that list. His support for more pipelines in Canada is lackluster at best since there are so many conditions that must be met in order for pipelines to proceed. It's unlikely that any will be built as long as he is PM. It has been suggested that he opposes Canadian oil because it would be more competition for his Brookfield shares in foreign oil companies.

Yes, it's just the way things are that politicians have a giant leg up on the rest of us when it comes to enriching themselves.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

It is sometimes difficult when a company like Brookfield, a leading global investment firm" which invests in so many things, pays it's investors can be held away from any dealings or contracts with any government or company that the companies they have invested in do. . They buy and sell companies for it's investors.

 

Brookfield specifically is not an investment only. He not only owns significant shares, but he also owns significant stock options for the future and he also will likely be asked to work there again when he stops being prime minister. This isn't a casual relationship where he owns shares in an equity fund that might invest in something like that, there's a direct connection there and he is most certainly going to have a direct relationship with them. 

This isn't "Somewhat difficult", this is a clear conflict of interest and PRETENDING that he's got someone else looking after his portfolio is clearly ridiculous.  It may not be illegal but it's still entirely immoral and corrupt, 

[ExFlyer]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Brookfield specifically is not an investment only. He not only owns significant shares, but he also owns significant stock options for the future and he also will likely be asked to work there again when he stops being prime minister. This isn't a casual relationship where he owns shares in an equity fund that might invest in something like that, there's a direct connection there and he is most certainly going to have a direct relationship with them. 

This isn't "Somewhat difficult", this is a clear conflict of interest and PRETENDING that he's got someone else looking after his portfolio is clearly ridiculous.  It may not be illegal but it's still entirely immoral and corrupt, 

Boo Hoo

All in blind trust...just like millionaire (who never had a job except as a public servant) PP Le Pew's blind trust. "It may not be illegal but it's still entirely immoral and corrupt, "LOL