Harper, Obama And The Impossible Fat Albert

Posted on Monday, July 19 at 14:48 by robertjb

 

If one wanted to personify the military industrial complex it  would be a very fat and repulsive man sitting at a very big table with big chubby hands grasping, always grasping, at the public purse( Let’s call him Fat Albert!) He never has to reach very far as there is always a steady stream of politicians bellying up to the table with an endless supply of taxpayers hard- earned money to buy his varied assortment of war toys. Money, in its magical flight, has also been known to pass under the table.  
 
Fat Albert is a very clever guy as once he and his buddies get the politicians hooked on a project in the development stage the price just keeps going up and up.
 
Another of Albert’s clever little tricks is to hire former military as lobbyists to drop in on politicians and acquaint them with their latest project. This lobbying is in itself a multi-billion dollar business.
 
Fat Albert knows what every politicians fears- job losses in their home constituency so he and his buddies spread their production facilities over all 50 states of the union to insure that no politician would dare say no to their every wish.
 
This excessive abundance of war toys creates a bit of a problem. They can’t sit around unused as there might actually be awkward questions asked. To justify these vast expenditures there must be wars. In order for there to be wars there must be enemies. Enemies cannot be relied upon to show up on schedule and pose a genuine  threat. It is left to politicians to manufacture  enemies as necessary and exaggerate their  capabilities to suit the agenda( This was the true genius of George W. Bush). In the real world(where too many politicians have lapsed memberships) this is called “collusion” which is synonymous with “conspiracy.”
 
It is also called corporate welfarism, and Fat Albert is the most eminent of corporate welfare bums. There was a time as an aspiring politician that Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced corporate welfarism, but now he is all too willing to collude with these corporate pick pockets.  
 
So we see an ever expanding military industrial state, endless warfare, corporate welfare,  and catastrophic public debt.
 
 
Shooting down the F-35
 
The late 1980’s saw the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. This was an opportunity for Fat Albert to lose some weight and trim down to a respectable size, but this was not to be. Militarism in the US had become a national addiction and Fat Albert’s appetite just grew and grew.
 
Then came the war on terror and Fat Albert grew some more to where his ravenous appetite consumes almost half of the US annual budget and the US is spending more money on “defense” than the next twenty or so countries combined.
 
If Americans wonder why they don’t have effective and affordable Medicare it’s because Fat Albert is devouring an obscene portion of the national budget.         
 
To keep Fat Albert really happy and well fed other countries are coerced into buying war toys they don’t need and can’t afford. Thus we have Canada about to buy 65 F-35 fighters at an astounding 140 million dollars each.
 
These fighters are really relics of the Cold War where they were build in mass numbers for conventional warfare to deter any Soviet attack on Europe. We are now in a very different type of warfare where the use of these planes has been a disaster all too often killing civilians instead of  the enemy. Just one of  the reasons we are losing such wars is that we continually try to use conventional weapons to win guerrilla wars. This is as true in Afghanistan as it was in Viet Nam.
 
The only reason they are still being sold is because of collusion between politicians and the planes manufacturers. Similarly, as one observer has commented US aircraft carriers still wander the seas looking for a long extinct Japanese fleet. The point being they too are obsolete and the nuclear submarine is really the more effective weapon.  
 
Canada’s purchase of 65 of these high tech dinosaurs is modest in the face of the US buying 2,443 of them at a cost of .3 trillion dollars. One wonders where Obama is going to get the money as he is fighting foreign wars on borrowed money and borrowed time and he leads the world’s most indebted country. America’s creditors are getting very nervous. It would seem a good time to put Fat Albert on a very strict diet.
 
As Western countries struggle with economic recession and huge debt loads what better time to start dealing with the Fat Albert monster child who compulsively gorges himself on public dollars.
 
Instead of waging wars to secure the last rapidly dwindling supplies of oil we should be waging war in favor of energy conservation and more efficient technologies. Politicians must not only end this collusion but also re-direct excessive military spending into the new economy; one that diversifies into new strategies, products and technologies that invest in our future and not a corrupted past.
 
Fat Albert is the bad boy nobody wants to talk about but dealing with him we must.  Shooting down the F 35 is an essential first step.
 

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:52 pm
    I see the headlines now. "Canadian Pilot dies as CF-18 Crashes". And people here loved when the US coast guard started patrolling the great lakes on our behalf. I can't wait till the US Air Force has to patrol the arctic because we have no long range aircraft left.

  2. Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:29 am
    Sorry to see your comment Dr. Caleb you miss the point of my article entirely.

  3. by RickW
    Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:41 am
    "Dr Caleb" said
    I see the headlines now. "Canadian Pilot dies as CF-18 Crashes". And people here loved when the US coast guard started patrolling the great lakes on our behalf. I can't wait till the US Air Force has to patrol the arctic because we have no long range aircraft left.


    Dr. C! You miss the point of defense spending entirely! The main purpose is to provide a boost to the local economy, and only secondarily that of national defense. Why do you think the US keeps the majority of their "defense" spending in house?. But Diefenbaker scuttled the Arrow and Pearson began the tradition of buying Yankee castoffs that continues to this day.

    And just what do we use to purchase these (soon to be) boondoggles? Yet more primary resources?

    BTW, it seems to me that none of the aircraft or other military hardware purchased by successive Canadian governments for the last 40 years have been capable of sustained operations in Arctic conditions. These won't be any different.

  4. Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:25 pm
    "These fighters are really relics of the Cold War where they were build in mass numbers for conventional warfare to deter any Soviet attack on Europe. We are now in a very different type of warfare where the use of these planes has been a disaster all too often killing civilians instead of the enemy."

    One paragraph later...

    "US aircraft carriers still wander the seas looking for a long extinct Japanese fleet. The point being they too are obsolete and the nuclear submarine is really the more effective weapon."

    LOL. I'm wondering what would be said if we fired a nuke at insurgents instead of a hellfire missle.

    I like the point of the article, and primarily agree with it - the US spends waaaay too much on weapons. That being said, we do need replacement planes (and ships and tanks, etc...). However, where the article fails is that it tries to say that we should only concentrate on the limited engagements that the US/NATO/UN face today. States are still a greater threat. North Korea would flatten the South if it were not for those US aircraft carriers as one example. Does spending need to be where it is in order to indimidate these types of players? Probably not. But our own spending has been historically light in the past few decades (under both cons and libs). And we don't have any military plane manufacturers here. That would be an industry that needs to be built from the ground up.

    Though military spending the US didn't help the debt crisis they are currently in, it didn't cause it either. While I again agree with the article that we need to invest in alternative energy, etcetera, that doesn't mean that we eliminate our ability to patrol our shores or contribute to NATO/UN missions overseas. And while you may think that the use of aircraft in the limited engagements we find ourselves currently embroiled in where "the use of these planes has been a disaster all too often killing civilians instead of the enemy", and thus the planes are too costly, the alternative is hundreds of thousands of our troops to contain insurgents which would mean even more body bags coming home.

  5. Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:00 pm
    We have 50 years old B 52s over our heads every day. What the hell are they doing here, flying East-West? Looking for Obama?

    The US has satellites that can read newspapers from way up, but can't find Obama's camp ?

    Ed Deak.

  6. Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:14 pm
    Not to mention, to put weapons ahead of public health care and affordable post secondary education is just beyond stupid. But, we could afford it all- with monetary reform!

  7. Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:54 pm
    "robertjb" said
    Sorry to see your comment Dr. Caleb you miss the point of my article entirely.


    I did read your article. I have to in order to be 'editor'.

    And I agree with Michael on it:

    "Michael Scott" said

    I like the point of the article, and primarily agree with it - the US spends waaaay too much on weapons. That being said, we do need replacement planes (and ships and tanks, etc...). However, where the article fails is that it tries to say that we should only concentrate on the limited engagements that the US/NATO/UN face today.


    If we want to be able to fulfil our international obligations with respect to our sovereignty, we must be able to project military power at least inside our own borders. That is international law - if we don't use it, we lose it. So if all our 30 year old F-18s are grounded because of stress cracks in the airframes - what are we to do? Most of the CF-18s we bought 30 years ago are being used for parts.

    So we buy new aircraft that at least have some parts made in Canada to support Canadian manufacturers. 140 Million isn't a bad price, considering similar aircraft. (Dassault Rafale ~60M Euro, Eurofighter - Don't a$k, don't tell . . )

  8. Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:55 pm
    "Fiatlux2" said
    We have 50 years old B 52s over our heads every day. What the hell are they doing here, flying East-West? Looking for Obama?

    The US has satellites that can read newspapers from way up, but can't find Obama's camp ?

    Ed Deak.


    1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC, Ed.

  9. Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:00 pm
    This is really funny!I obviously meant Osama, but typo got in the way.

    Have to watch it before the Green Berets jump onto our house from one of those junk murder machines. I've timed one of them years ago. They're using enough fuel in their 8 engines while I can see them, to last my truck and all my farm equipment for 10 years.

    Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

  10. Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:36 pm
    I thought you'd be amused by your typo Ed. ;)

  11. Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:18 pm
    For a minute I thought Ed had secret Tea Party roots. My entire worldview had been upset.

  12. Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:03 am
    Michael, I grew up and was educated as an ultra conservative fascist, so I know what the Tea Party is about, how the political system works, and where the world is heading under the dictatorship of the present corporate mafia. Basically the same collectivization, colonization road planned by the Soviets, using the perceived power of imaginary money, instead of bayonets.

    By the way, I still own 2 ltd. corporations . Not worth a damn, but I can still call myself a President, each April when I have to renew their registration.

    I've spent too much time in corporate offices and boardrooms in my Vancouver years, know how they work and what they've been planning for the past 50 years.

    As far Obama is concerned, the 2 best and most sincere, political speakers I have known in my observer/analyst years have been Tony Blair and Barack Obama.

    Both turned out to be bums pushing hot air.

    Cheers, Ed.

  13. by RickW
    Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:57 pm
    From the Victoria Times-Colonist:
    http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescol ... 664e7e7534
    On Feb, 20, 1959, then-prime minister John Diefenbaker announced the cancellation of the CF-105 Arrow program.

    He ordered five completed superb machines, in flying condition, to be torched into small pieces and junked.

    This appalling act of vandalism was perpetrated on five aircraft that the prime minister had indicated had cost the taxpayers approximately $60 million. This cancellation caused about 14,000 skilled employees at A.V. Roe's plants in Malton and another 15,000 employed by some 2,500 subcontractors to be put abruptly out of work.

    Now, 50 years later, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has announced a plan to buy 65 F35 fighters to replace 138 CF-18 fighters, which we have just spent $2.6 billion to upgrade.

    The F35s are to cost $9 billion.

    The Times Colonist provided the following comparison figures:

    The CF-18s currently in use have a top speed of Mach 1.8, range of 3,700 kilometres and 138 planes are available. They cost $29 million each.

    The F35s have a lower top speed, at Mach 1.67, reduced range at 2,200 kilometres and 65 planes will -- maybe -- be available for use in six years. They will cost $139 million each.

    It appears we are paying five times as much for a machine with poorer performance and, at the same time, cutting the size of our fleet by 50 per cent



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news