Monday, May 19, 2014

Lockheed Martin shills still flogging F-35 strike fighter

My first question is why the Globe and Mail allowed this pro-Lockheed propaganda into its commentary section instead of making the company buy advertising space.

Writer Paul Manson's background is unique in that he has been both the chief of Canada's defence staff and chief of Lockheed Martin Canada. The cosy connection between Lockheed and the Canadian defence establishment was further illustrated last September when Lt. General Charles Bouchard, the guy who directed the NATO bombardment of Libya in 2011, was named head of the company's Canadian operations.

Critics claim the F-35 is designated the II because it is too heavy, too slow, too fuel thirsty, too complex, and too expensive. That might be why Manson shied away from performance specifics in his article, focusing instead on generic fear-mongering and Canada's international image.

How do you like this howler?

The West failed to see that in short order, it would find itself immersed in strange new conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now, suddenly, Ukraine. Predicting the place, time and nature of modern human conflict is a mug's game.

Not so fast, Mr. Manson! The only thing "strange" about these conflicts is that none of these enemies posed any threat to the "West". They were strictly wars of opportunity voluntarily entered into by NATO. Picking the place and time of your next war is simple enough when you're the party starting them.

And then there's this;

Not to be disregarded is the impact the selection will have on Canada's international image as a contributor to collective security.

The meddling by NATO in the above countries has improved our collective security? That's an extremely dubious proposition. With respect especially to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it is plainly obvious that Western intervention has had the opposite effect. We're being asked to commit many billions to this technology based on what our allies in this dysfunctional military alliance might think of us?

From a Canadian perspective, would we not be better served by taking leave of this alliance which long ago outlived it's usefulness, and invest those billions in the many pressing needs we have right here at home?

No comments:

Post a Comment