Join the No Stealth Fighters Campaign conference call

Fill out the form to get the conference call number

Join us to learn more about Stephen Harper’s plan to spend $16 billion on “shock and awe” stealth fighters. Submit your question or campaign idea.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

12:00 Eastern (1:00 AT, 11:00 CT, 10:00 MT, 9:00 PT)

with Steven Staples and special guest Michael Byers.

Tags: , , , ,

27 Responses to “Join the No Stealth Fighters Campaign conference call”

  1. RayMarch 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    Writing as a 30-year resident of Halifax, I’ve seen contract after contract for new Navy helicopters canceled since the Mulroney days. Maybe someone can stand up for replacing the Sea Kings which apparently require 200 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. They’re that old! Is this any way to protect our Maritime coastal border? Not to mention, search and rescue…..

  2. Don WilsonOctober 28, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    I just HATE what we have let kanada become, uncle sam’s spittle-licking lap-dog. We should have had the Balls to tell amerika to piss off when it came demanding that we sacrifice our young people to oust the admittedly crazy Taliban regime. Crazy the Talis may be, but you can’t change the hearts of a people by raining death upon them! The Taliban will return to power in Afghanistan because they reflect the will of the majority of the people. So what if they need to blow up statues to maintain power? So what if the girls remain uneducated? Will the Afghans as a whole be less happy if their women remain ignorant? Whether we approve or not, theirs is a successful society occupying a pretty harsh environment, and they’ve been doing it for Thousands of Years!
    As for these war machines that amerika wants to sell us. What are they for? Toys for emotionally crippled A-types to rocket their asses across the sky? To what end? Impress us with the amount of fuel they waste to further compromise our environment?
    You know what? I can’t go on. I’m so pissed with our ass-kissing Ottawa regime – and I mean Everyone of them on both sides of the house – and our branch-plant military. Spend the money on SAR helicopters, and tender the G-d contract, you jerx!

  3. Jamie LaidlawOctober 28, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Michael is doing a terrific analysis that notes the perverseness of the arguments for these aggressive shock and awe death machines and contribute nothing to the Canadian pursuit of mutual development for all of us on this fragile globe that requires better management and responsible commitment from those who govern.

    Our humanitarian traditions won with great finesse and intelligence by Robertson, Wrong, Pearson and MacIntosh and is being ignored because of lack of common decency in our governors.

    Search and rescue indeed. Who are we serving?

    Thank you Michael.

  4. Steve FerrisOctober 28, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    It’s rather difficult to support or not support the acquisition of attack aircraft without first undersstanding what the overall strategy is or intended to be. That kind of a discussion has not occurred in Canada but the Harper government has abandoned our past making peace role to one of a making war role. Just who the boogyman is is a mystry. The majority of Canadians support an honest broker role, one that has no need for attack aircraft and hopefully soon no need for Harper.

  5. ChardaOctober 27, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    Lockheed Martin is the biggest military supplier worldwide thanks to their very cozy relationship with Washington. Foreign purchases of Lockheed’s hardware are presumably subsidized by the US people as to be the answer to USA’s strategic interests. One should ask if this is all about the USA, their strategic interests in the Arctic, and nothing at all with Canda’s military hardware needs. I have seen these hard-sell tactics in several countries in Europe and, when all analized, it is Lockheed who secures US interest in Europe. Moreover Lockheed has (or had) several of their senior people on the board of conservative think tanks and may well know Harper from his NCC days. Therefore I ask, to what extent has this to do with the strategic (and economic!) ambitions of the USA? And do these ambitions benefit Canada?

  6. Stefa ShalerOctober 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    Sadly, I can’t make it for this call. The idea of Canada spending billions of dollars on fighting machinery is appalling and tragic. We have many thousands of homeless people! We’re becoming a junior USA. How can this be stopped? Please don’t ask me for money.

    Bravo if you can stop this madness!

    Stefa Shaler, Vancouver

  7. Russ PowellOctober 27, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    It seems as if Prime Minister Harper wants to turn Canada into Isengard, a pale imitation of the evil Mordor in Lord of the Rings. Canada cannot become and Canadians do not want us to become a military power. Let’s stick to peace keeping roles and spend the billions Harper has earmarked for the stealth fighters on social programs and international aid.
    Russ Powell

  8. Eryl CourtOctober 27, 2010 at 8:05 am #

    I think we should be asking the Government of S. Harper, and THE CANADIAN PEOPLE, what do they consider the priorities for our country? Do we above all want to help our own great people, and the populations of the developing nations, to achieve their great goals (above all the MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS) of a liveable future for all, or do we want to add to our KILLING POWER (for that is the only thing these military airplanes can do)? HUMAN NEEDS SHOULD COME FIRST, BOTH IN CANADA AND ACROSS THE GLOBE. (I THINK THAT IS WHAT CANADIANS REALLY WANT).

    Let us get our priorities clear, and let Canada act and be recognized above all as a HUMANE nation. Humanity across the globe is in great jeopardy, and our country should take a lead in protecting and preserving it. We are certainly not doing that under the present Administration.

    Thank you.

    Eryl Court

  9. John OlsenOctober 26, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    Why don’t you try a CCPA approach by offering a catalogue of alternative uses of these DND funds such as securing the Arctic. The alternative is to offer a listing of non-military uses of the $$.

  10. John BuryOctober 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    The Saskatoon Peace Coalition has written to Peter Mackay and our four local Conservative MP’s. We objected to the purchase based on your report for CCPA, Ernie Regehr’s blogs and some useful information from Scott Taylor in Espris de Corps. We pointed out lost opportunity costs, Sea-king helicopter replacement,three promised supply ships for the navy,arctic ice-breakers. Then there is all the equipment absent in Afghanistan such as heavylift helicopters and large transport planes.We thenlisted whatcould be done with$ 1 billion such as hiring 18,000 nurses,23,000 highs-school teachers or 5-6000 low income housing units.We thought that this line points out the folly ofthe purchase that seems to imply that Canada is prepsring to go to war.

  11. Onni MilneOctober 26, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    As a Canadian citizen sickened by current Conservative policies, I feel pleased to read the comments on your website re purchase of the stealth fighter jets. I feel sickened to think of the millions spent on the Olympics and security for the G8/20 conferences. I feel sickened to think of the millions to be spent for the fighters while millions of people across Canada are sleeping on the street due to lack of affordable housing and there is a serious lack of services needed by Canadians. Why is it that real services for real people is always at the bottom of governments priorities lists. The CBC program, “The Current”, discussed this issue and indicated the real plane needed by the Canadian forces. Too bad Harper and his cronies don’t listen to CBC instead of their pals in the defense industries. Gosh, they may learn what is really going on.

  12. Nancy PriceOctober 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Stop Harpers war machine! Get out of Afghanistan. I do not want a single tax dollar spent on the military. Stop the rhetoric script of victims/ perpetrators/ and rescuers. This is not how responsible people in power behave. We are not in a war, no one has declared war on us.

    Spend tax dollars on directly creating a healthy and beautiful society. If we have a military we should put the forces to work organic farming and providing food for the ever increasing basic needs of Canadians. This would be very positive move. Put the money into culture, education, health. Create affordable housing, meaningful work!

    I do not want to live in the Canada I have been living in for the last number of years. It is oppressive, anti-intellectual, anti-artist, undemocratic, …fascist.

  13. Marion PapeOctober 25, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Why is Canada so silent about the growing militarism in our country and what can we do to rev up the campaign against this stupid and costly purchase?

    Marion Pape, Salt Spring Island

  14. s d griffithsOctober 25, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    More of Harpers madness.I think he thinks of us as a mega military power.Or wishes he has that kind of power.He is a so dangerous,and would drag us into conflict at the drop of a(USA) hat,DSG

  15. Renie Mc CallumOctober 25, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    All the comments so far have covered nearly everything, but as of this moment we have a fascist P.M. who is eager for war. We Canadians are NOT war mongers, diplomacy is the only way to go!! Harper reminds me of a yappy little dog, who wants to fight any dog who comes near him, mainly because he has a huge Great Dane right behind him, in Harper’s case it’s the U.S. BUT Obama is a different President than Bush/Cheney, so, it is far more intelligent to spend those billions on Hospitals, Schools etc.

  16. dianne fahseltOctober 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    First of all, what is the purpose for which these planes will be used?

    If we only need them for boundary reconnaisance they don’t need to be manned or armed. If for combat we must be assuming that we’re going to be perpetually involved in aggresive actions, like the USA. Nobody has threatened us. Let’s dispense with vast military spending before we get into the same fiscal dilemma as USA and Britain.

    What is the rationale for these planes?

  17. frank lehmannOctober 25, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Can you imagine Harper with a majority and Sarah Palin commander in chief of the USA? We would certainly need something to carry the nukes around the globe, what an exciting fireworks this would make! Hey, count me in, but please don’t take me too serious.

  18. jacques lussierOctober 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    The bottom line is this;either we defend Canada from the so-called threat by the Russians (among others THEY SAY) diplomatically and with the use of every jurisdiction and legal mean that exist OR we finance this billion dollar escalade leading to what exactly? A war with submarines, fighter jets, missiles etc…between icebergs and oil prodution plateforms?

    Please…the question is; fine, we buy the jets, pay the extra costs (double usually?)and then loose?
    Do you really expect to win a war against Russia- and who else? China? (even with a little help from our dear friends down south)??!!
    And what about the consequences of such a fight on the ocean, the marine flora and fauna.
    Some wars are better won with money and
    compromises than fire.

    Thank you for having read me and please think of what would do a Conservative majority government.Save Canada for real this time.

    jacques lussier
    actor, writer, pacifist
    Montreal Quebec Canada.

  19. Esa KuusistoOctober 25, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    I understand this is primarily an attack aircraft so it can hardly be called a defensive craft. The Harper regime is inextricably tied into the American military/industrial complex and I suspect the purpose is to augment American military adventures worldwide. The way the world economy and food supply is developing Harper and company are perhaps anticipating a war with China and Russia in order to save monoply capitalism.

    Sincerely,

  20. timOctober 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    Some of the points made by critics in the media have been salient. (1) That these are not what’s needed for the kind of activities Canada is engaged in. (2) And that these jets are designed for violent attacks. They dont fit into the frames of self-defense or peace-keeping, except when the parameters of these frames are stretched beyond their reasonable limits. I wonder if it would be helpful in a campaign to go a step further/beyond the narrow question of what the military needs?

    Part of my opposition to the purchase of these jets is the way they fit into a picture of the redefining of Canada that has unfolded in the Harper era. (1) The rewriting of the citizenship book to emphasize Canada’s military history; (2) The canceling of the long-form census which is a critical tool for deep multiculturalism (the claiming of government funding for language services); (3) The unprecedented use of state power brought against citizens, journalists and students at the Toronto G20; (4) The purchase of the the 65 F-35 stealth jets…and so on. Perhaps there is a way to tie the issue of these jets to the issue of the ‘militant’ vision of Canada to get a broader public purchase on this issue.

    It’s not just a debate about jets. It’s struggle over who we are and who we want to become. What Canada will your children grow up in?

    Promoter of Peace or Owner of Stealth Bombers?

  21. brian twiggOctober 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    It would be good if the amount of money involved in purchasing these bombers could be publically related to

    - roughly so many hospital beds, or hospital services
    - reduction in waiting times for operations
    - educational opportunities
    - infrastructure improvements
    - alternative energy development
    - compliance with goals to reduce climate change

    Equivalencies could be developed for both Canada and other countries. Because of the age class distribution in our population, could emphasize hip replacements, etc. For younger people could point out jobs in sectors besides the military

    People can’t really visualize the billions involved, they are so far removed from our own experience. With that same amount of money we could do so much good in the world.

    Dianne Fahselt and Brian Twigg

  22. TomOctober 25, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    Although it’s not difficult to believe that the Conservative party is ill-informed about Canada’s military hardware needs, if any, beyond that ignorance is the question of who IS benefitting from this purchase–the manufacturers, etc., and what their connections are to the Conservatives.

  23. garyOctober 24, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    What about our commitment to NATO? Does this require that we spend a certain amount or have a certain style of equipment?It doesn’t sound like this equipment (stealth bomber) has peace keeping as it’s motive.

  24. Clinton McDougallOctober 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    I agree with Gordon, highlighting the fact that this is the wrong aircraft for Canada is an integral part of the argument in getting Canadians to understand why this “fighter jet” is a mistake. Illustrating our needs as a country, such as peace keeping and arctic mobility, will go a long way in showing how misinformed the Harper government actually is and where our tax dollars should be spent.

  25. Anne RobinsonOctober 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    This super fighter jet ups the ante on war rhetoric and a war culture at a time when we are pulling out of Afghanistan, and when we should be finding ways to promote peace.
    What kind of an image will this purchase create in the world, especially at a time when we have lost our bid for a seat on the Security Council, and when we have pulled so many other gaffs on the world stage by refusing to sign important accords?

    Maybe beer and maple syrup would go a lot further to promote peace, eh?

    Anne

  26. GordonOctober 23, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    How about strengthening the critique by pointing out Canada did not actually get the model of fighter that we really need? I supported the idea of these fighters because I thought they were getting the model that has the vertical take off and landing features. Probably the most useful feature in a country as large as ours is. Imagine the benefit of being able to deliver a critical medical supply to a northern location at super sonic speeds for instance… All you need is a Helicopter pad I understand.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Join the No Stealth Fighters Campaign conference call | Ceasefire.ca -- Topsy.com - October 25, 2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by No Stealth Fighters and Pinnacle Lists, Pat Murtagh. Pat Murtagh said: Join the No Stealth Fighters Campaign conference call | Ceasefire.ca http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=5840 [...]