By John Q. Hosedrinker 
IJB will be hosting a conversation with TSN’s Rick Westhead in Toronto on January 29th. The discussion will provide an unflinching look at the complexities of Canadian hockey culture. Tickets are available for those interested in attending.
Read the original article here
U.S. will have to send its own fighter jets into Canadian airspace if Ottawa doesn’t buy 88 F-35s, Hoekstra says, and the immediate reaction is a mix of disbelief, anger, and defiance, as if someone just announced a truly absurd proposition. The suggestion that the U.S. would essentially *have* to fly its own jets over Canadian territory if Canada doesn’t purchase the F-35s has clearly struck a nerve. It sounds like an ultimatum straight out of a bad movie, not a serious diplomatic discussion.
The sentiment seems to be that this kind of pressure tactic is counterproductive. Instead of winning friends and influencing people, it comes across as bullying. The comments reflect a feeling of being worn down by a constant stream of “do this, or else” demands from a certain corner of the U.S. government. The whole approach seems to have backfired spectacularly, making the F-35 purchase even less appealing. The idea of trading on friendship and shared history is lost amid the bluntness of the threat.
Many people quickly pivot to discussing alternatives to the F-35. The Gripen, a Swedish-made fighter jet, gets a lot of mentions. This suggests that the threat has spurred interest in exploring options that would allow Canada to maintain its sovereignty and not feel beholden to the U.S. The potential purchase of SAMs (Surface-to-Air Missiles) is also mentioned. It’s a clear signal that this kind of bluster is only going to push Canada in a direction it might not have otherwise considered.
The discussion quickly moves from military procurement to broader questions about trust and cooperation between the two countries. The general feeling is that this kind of behavior actively undermines any goodwill. The ambassador, in particular, is viewed with suspicion. There’s a strong perception that he’s not acting in good faith. The repeated calls for his removal from the country and criticism of his diplomatic performance underscore how this incident has damaged his credibility.
The underlying question, of course, is about NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The U.S. and Canada share a crucial defense partnership, but the comments reflect a cynicism about the true nature of this arrangement. The sentiment that NORAD serves primarily to protect the lower 48 states is widely felt. The idea that Canada is expendable in a larger strategic framework is deeply unsettling, and the comments make this point.
The use of provocative headlines is mentioned, along with the expectation of a negative reaction to this announcement. It seems that this article’s very premise would be to draw a reaction of anger from readers. The discussion takes on a distinctly personal tone. There are many expressions of anger, a desire for an end to the perceived bullying, and a clear rejection of the entire line of argument. This is not simply a debate about fighter jets; it’s a commentary on the state of the relationship between two nations.
The focus then shifts toward the political and economic landscape. There is discussion about the current administration and its tactics. There is a sense of exhaustion with this approach. The comments suggest that many believe the U.S. ambassador’s actions, and the whole situation, are a major miscalculation. The idea that this is a case of political posturing, or even incompetence, is strong.
Some commenters are pointing out that this might be a sign that Canada has already made a decision, possibly to go with the Gripen. The timing of the comments has prompted speculation. There is a belief that this could be a pre-emptive effort to pressure Canada. The implication is that this may be a sign of weakness, not strength.
Ultimately, the consensus seems to be that the U.S. ambassador’s comments have backfired. The strategy appears to have created resistance rather than cooperation. There’s a clear sense that Canada is not going to be intimidated. The overwhelming sentiment is that the U.S. needs to adjust its approach. The suggestion that Canada is being threatened is not welcome.