Surprised me too. However, I clearly said they tend to support the Liberals. Last election was pretty odd. Liberals were pretty unsupportable. Heck, I donated to the local candidate, and then voted against them as the election deteriorated.
The Star endorsed the Liberals in the provincial election, as is their pattern
Liberals ARE left leaning (somewhat).
Globe endorsed the Tories ... are they right-leaning?
Depends what else they do.
Really? After the way they went after Miller and Giambrone, you need me to go find links? They were downright vicious.
You are going to need to explain a bit more than that. Military is my field, internal politics is not.
However, here is an unbiased article about the political affiliations of the above papers:
Here it states globe is right leaning while star is more towards the liberals than ndp, but far more than the conservatives.
To hell with NATO. The whole purpose of NATO was to defend Western Europe against the Soviets. It's over ... Russia isn't going to invade Germany. They can barely deal with their own people.
NATO's agenda morphed, now the alliance is primarily to assist allies with their foreign interests, as well as prevent internal squabble between previously hostile states. (of course the old agenda still resides)
The former is useful to us.
Defend our airspace against what? It's completely not necessary ... and a waste of money.
For one thing, the Russians are still poking us with bombers on a regular basis.
If it was so important, do you really think a handful of active fighters at 2 airbases makes any difference?
Militarily speaking, having an operational and capable air force even of low quantities are a force enabler for strategic defense assets such as SAMs. Further, their(f-35) ability to detect launches of Ballistic missiles from over a thousand miles away provides valuable intelligence for proper countermeasures.
Politically speaking, having a capable and operational air force provides a useful deterrent against anything from harassment, spying, EM sniffing, and all the way to a preemptive strike.
Desperate times indeed:...
...It is very telling that Lockheed Martin feels such a need to spread so much political cash around to try to prevent the F-35 budget from being cut.
Ad hominem, you are attacking the company and not the product.
The emperor has no clothes, but with enough cash maybe some important decision-makers can be bamboozled further into supporting this colossal waste of money.
Nothing in your post provides any evidence for this conclusion.
Turkey's estimate for 100 F-35s
Summary: 100 F-35s delivery begins 2015 for $16 Billion.
Means 65 F-35s would likely cost $10.4 Billion.
Assuming this estimate encompasses the same details as the Canadian estimate(possible, but unsure), it is More than Harper's estimate by 1.4 Billion, but far less than the PBO's prediction.
Even at that price, the F-35 is still worth while considering the price for the Eurofighter and Rafale ranges from 75-125 million a pop.