471
submitted 1 week ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 201 points 1 week ago

So if they don't buy any we're just gonna give them out free? That's dumb.

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 90 points 1 week ago

The Art of the Deal.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 48 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 123 points 1 week ago

This is just robbery, we weren't able to make our schedule and modified the price. "$27.7 billion in cost – up from its initial $19 billion."

Yet expect them to just give us $7 billion dollars because we failed to meet the contract?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago

Duh. That's how extortion works.

You think the mob ever delivered anything on time and under budget?

[-] Archer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Now I want a short story where the Mob accidentally hires the most effective project manager ever

[-] Thassodar@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

There's actually an anime where a corporate worker gets summoned into another world because they need him to use his efficiency to get their shit together.

It's called "Headhunted to Another World: From Salaryman to Big Four!", and it's pretty good.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xyro@morbier.foo 92 points 1 week ago

"Buy or weapons or else..." Maybe we should look for a more reliable supplier and close our airspace to their jet fighters.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 84 points 1 week ago

“Give us money or we will attack you” is generally not something you say to an ally you want to keep. Trump is literally insane, trying to start WW3.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 week ago

It's extortion, the only thing trump knows...

[-] smeenz@lemmy.nz 17 points 1 week ago

In his narcissistic mind, everyone else is just there for him to exploit. He literally can not comprehend any other way to do things.

[-] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 79 points 1 week ago

Everybody calm down. USA and Canada have an agreement allowing them to enter each other's air space. They said that if Canada doesn't buy enough F-35s USA will have to send more jests into Canada's airspace to fill in the gaps. That's it. It's not "buy our jets or we will invade you". It's "if Canada doesn't buy F-35 we will have to do more work in our agreement".

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

This community really needs a clickbait title flagging process.

[-] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Our media needs to fucking quit the click baity titles.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

But why isn't Canada allowed to use whatever other jets it buys for that? Why does it have to be American made f-35s?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] boletus@infosec.pub 10 points 1 week ago

You are right. The title is so misleading and I can't believe someone with the title journalist on their resume wrote it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 62 points 1 week ago

That’s technically a declaration of war, right?

[-] sik0fewl@piefed.ca 21 points 1 week ago

Not even close.

They’re suggesting that Canada won’t be able to defend its own airspace so US will have to be able to operate more freely in Canadian than they already do. They are saying that the NORAD agreement would need to be updated to accommodate this.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 54 points 1 week ago

Pretty sure that is the exact explanation that Russia uses when it violates Finnish and Swedish airspace.

[-] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And neither Finland nor Sweden are at war with Russia. Bullshit scare tactic used by fucking putin yes, but it's not itself an act of war. At least, it isn't generally treated as such.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago

You seem to be applying a pretty strict definition to what is actually an arbitrary term. An act of war can be anything that any nation wants to call an act of war.

So I guess we should probably just use some of the countries involved in the real life case we are talking about.

Does anyone consider violation of airspace by a nations warplanes to be in-and-of-itself an act of war or at least a proactive action worthy of escalation and retaliation? Oh yeah, the United States does. And so does Russia.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago

NORAD already has shared skies provisions. US jets can fly into our airspace as needed to intercept foreign attackers. We can do the same with them.

None of this constitutes a threat, despite Hoekstra's weird, fumbling attempt to deliver it like one.

He basically said "If you don't give us your business, we'll have no choice but to protect your airspace even harder!" Oh, wow, scary. No, please, don't do that.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 week ago

It's kinda loud in here, did the headline say 'piece of shit fuckface Trump gives Canada reason #563 to stop trading with the US and increase trade with Europe, China, etc'?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago

What

Buy our fighters jets or we invade with fighter jets ?

What absolute fuck is wrong with this country

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 41 points 1 week ago

Canada could do something really funny and start buying chinese anti-aircraft missiles.

[-] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago

Close. We should build our own, and if we happen to violate Chinese IP along the way, oh well.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] roserose56@lemmy.zip 38 points 1 week ago
[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago

I was walking past the 7-11 the other day and the manager came out and forced me to buy a slurpee by gunpoint. USA! USA! /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] vga@sopuli.xyz 33 points 1 week ago

Buy our fighter jets or we'll send you fighter jets

[-] TheProtagonist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Sounds like free delivery.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago

Basically: you are getting those F-35's whether you want them or not.

[-] sysadmin420@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I hate this timeline, but that's funny

[-] Janx@piefed.social 23 points 1 week ago

You know, like you do to allies when the commander in chief isn't a Russian asset.

[-] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago
[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Whatever it takes to distract from the Epstein files sir!

[-] sommerset 16 points 1 week ago

I mean it's always been like this basically.
But less publicly

[-] kokesh@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hector@lemmy.today 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Canada would be dumb to go forward, everyone knows the US has kill switches in their gear and now might hostilely engage canada, perhaps to steal territory, and otherwise has talked of invading other nato countries like in Greenland.

In which case the US could brick all of the gear they sold them. It's already bad enough, Canada has to buy from EADS or whomever builds their air forces, I would not trust the UK either at this point, they are properfucked by their own neoliberal type politicians in labour, that have done more damage than the tories the past couple of years..

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago

To do what? Fly around, wasting tax payer money?

[-] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago

wut.

If you don’t buy from me, I’ll bomb you.

[-] PointyFluff@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

pretty classic US negotiating technique, actually; just normally used against "brown" countries.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kingofras@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What are they going to do in Canadian airspace? like.. fly around? Can they do some tricks? Arent those jets mega expsnive to maintain and fly, and they are going to burn dollars by flying them around?

Pretty weird behavior for an ally's airspace, but OK, whatever.

Canada might think about halting lumber and oil shipments if they are too distracted by fighter jet noise to make work productivity goals. Those jets are loud and annoying. What then? Seems like trump will chicken out and walk back his childishness like he always does.

Only winner here is Putin, same as always. What a coincidence.

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This will be a devastating air campaign for the US, many F35s will be lost to mechanical and software failures and it isn't our fault it is totally Canada's fault if that happens because if they had bought our jets we wouldn't of had to break them by trying to use them as airplanes.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
471 points (94.4% liked)

News

35549 readers
2815 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS