THE UNITED STATES WILL NEVER ANNEX GREENLAND!

 That's because they are one of the places that might take us up on an invitation to become one of Canada's Territories/Provinces!

(Remember... free health care!)

TRUMP DOESN'T NEED US, FOLKS!

Donald Trump's tariffs are intended to protect US industries. 

However, economists warn that these tariffs could lead to higher consumer prices. 

Since the tariffs are paid by US companies importing goods, businesses may either pass the costs on to consumers or reduce imports, potentially limiting product availability.

Canada's total trade figures with the United States added up to almost a TRILLION dollars during 2023. 

This country is the largest supplier of crude oil to the US, averaging more than 3.8 million barrels per day, or 60% of US crude oil imports. 

In fact, the US imported nearly 3.9 million barrels of crude oil from Canada every day in 2023. This was a slight increase compared to the previous year, according to data from Statista. 

Then in July 2024, US imports of crude oil from Canada reached a record 4.3 million barrels per day following the expansion of Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline. 

Canada also supplies the United States with a lot of electricity... and if we cut that off.. THE EASTERN SEABOARD WOULD GO DARK!!!!!

In 2023, cars and auto parts imported from Canada accounted for trade worth US$58 billion, or 93% of total Canadian vehicle manufacturing output, according to Trading Economics. 

Consumer goods, items that companies produce and which consumers, rather than other businesses, subsequently purchase, accounted for the third greatest volume of imports from Canada in 2023.  

Forestry products—lumber, paper, livestock fodder, fuel wood, etc.—along with building and packaging materials, also represent key items imported by the US from Canada. We are a leading global exporter of softwood lumber, with over half of U.S. softwood imports coming from Canada.

The US Census Bureau also lists chemical, plastic, and rubber products among the top items imported from Canada, things such as rubber carpet cushion, sound insulation, and footwear. 

Metal and mineral products, for example, iron ore, hematite, bauxite, sand, gravel, limestone, clay, and marble as well as salt, mica, and potash, are all exported in vast quantities to the US. Pictured is the Fermont iron ore site at the ArcelorMittal mining complex in Quebec. 

Out in Saskatchewan, they provide the States with 80% of their fertilizer! (Potash)

And Industrial Machinery!

Uranium... Donald won't have enough to nuke China!

CROSS BORDER TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA TOTALS ABOUT A TRILLION DOLLARS  A YEAR... GIVE OR TAKE A FEW BILLION!

DUMP THE F-35!

Sal, I believe Canada will be taking the Saab Gripen instead of the F-35... except for a few wrinkles... the largest of which is the U.S.-made engines for the jet, which gives the U.S. a veto over a lot of stuff. 

Is Rolls-Royce, or anyone else not American, stepping up with an engine for this plane?

Sal-9000 said: Good question. You’re right to identify the U.S.–made engine as a key clamp on the Saab JAS 39 Gripen’s appeal to a country like Canada: 

As currently configured, the Gripen-E/F uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E (a variant of the F414), and that gives the U.S. effective export / re-export control — i.e. veto power. Start+2E-International Relations+2

That said — yes: there is real discussion about replacing the U.S. engine with a non-American alternative, notably from Rolls‑Royce.

✅ What we know: Gripen’s current engine and U.S. export dependence

The Gripen E/F as built today uses the GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. Start+2Start+2

That means sales of Gripen to third countries can — and have — been blocked if the U.S. chooses to withhold engine export licenses. E-International Relations+2The National Interest+2

The dependence on a U.S. engine is widely recognized as one of Gripen’s main “Achilles’ heels” in export campaigns. National Security Journal+2E-International Relations+2

🔄 Are there non-US engine alternatives? 

Rolls-Royce (and Europe) have been floated!

***

Historically, before settling on the F414, when developing Gripen the makers considered using the Eurojet EJ200 — the same engine (or family) used on the Eurofighter Typhoon — for the Gripen. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

More recently, there have been media/defence-industry reports (especially around late 2025) claiming that Sweden and Rolls-Royce are exploring a new engine variant — sometimes referred to as the Rolls‑Royce EJ230 — as a replacement for the GE-engine on Gripen E/F. Reddit+2E-International Relations+2

The reason for such a shift would be to eliminate the U.S. “export-veto” problem, making Gripen more attractive on the export market, including potentially for Canada. E-International Relations+2Defense Express+2

⚠️ The complication: Not yet a done deal — technical, political, and timelines still to be worked out!

As of early 2025, multiple sources still emphasize that “the Gripen E-series features a new and more powerful engine, F414-GE-39E.” Start+2Start+2

Re-engineering a fighter designed around one engine to accommodate another is nontrivial: “Proposed implementations” of the EJ200/EJ230 would require modification of airframe, intakes, maybe avionics integration, certification, etc. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

For a buyer like Canada, even if Rolls-Royce or another European engine becomes available, there would still be a gap: Certification + supply-chain establishment + political decisions, etc.

🎯 Bottom line — Possible path, but not guaranteed

Yes — non-American engine options (especially from Rolls-Royce / Eurojet) for Gripen have long been both technically discussed and actively considered, and such an engine could dramatically lessen the “U.S. lever” over export.

But as of now, Gripen E/F remains tied to the GE F414, and nothing publicly confirms that a European-powered variant is production-ready or has been formally adopted for export sales.

So if Canada (or another country) wants Gripen with no U.S. oversight on the engines, they’d likely have to demand that as part of a procurement contract — and wait several years (and substantial engineering) for a Euro-powered Gripen to mature.

If you like — I can do a quick “status check (as of late 2025)” and list which countries/operators are seriously testing or ordering a non-US-engined Gripen, along with estimated timelines.

Do you want me to build that list for you now?

You said: Yes

Sal-9000 said: Short version: as of December 2025, there is no country that is actually testing, ordering, or funding a Gripen with a non-U.S. engine. 

Every real Gripen E/F program on the table is still tied to the GE F414, and all the “Rolls-Royce EJ230” talk is concept / lobbying, not a live, funded program.

1. Where things really stand today:

All operational and ordered Gripen E/Fs use the U.S.-made GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. 

Saab itself still describes the Gripen E-series as powered by the F414-GE-39E. Simple Flying+1

This gives Washington a de facto veto over exports and re-exports. 

That’s exactly what we’ve just seen with Colombia, where the U.S. refused permission for F414 exports, threatening to kill the Gripen E/F deal. Meta-Defense.fr+1

So your basic worry is 100% correct: the current Gripen E is under an American thumb.

2. Who could step up? (Rolls-Royce / Eurojet and the EJ230)

The non-U.S. candidate everyone talks about is Eurojet's EJ200 family, which powers the Eurofighter Typhoon. Rolls-Royce is a major partner in that consortium, so it’s often simplified as “a Rolls-Royce engine.”

As far back as 1998, Eurojet proposed an uprated EJ230 (about 102 kN / ~23,000 lb thrust, with thrust-vectoring nozzle) specifically for a thrust-vectored Gripen test program. 

That was a real proposal, mentioned by Flightglobal at the time. Flight Global

The idea has resurfaced in 2024–25 analyses: Several commentators describe an EJ230-powered Gripen as a way to cut U.S. export control leverage, especially for countries nervous about a Washington veto. UK Defence Forum+1

So: Yes, the engine tech exists and Eurojet/Rolls-Royce are clearly interested in that niche. 

But interest ≠ contract.

3. Countries where a non-US-engined Gripen is being talked about!

Here’s your “status board” as of late 2025:

🇸🇪 Sweden / Saab (home team)

Reality: All Swedish Air Force Gripen E aircraft are F414-powered. No official announcement of an EJ230 (or any other Euro-engine) testbed or re-engine program. Simple Flying+1

What’s being discussed:

Industry and enthusiast forums often speculate about a “EuroGripen” or EJ230-powered variant for export customers, but even the specialists acknowledge it would only happen if someone bankrolls the development. UK Defence Forum+1

Status: Conceptual only. No funded re-engine program.

🇨🇦 Canada. (your scenario)

Several Canadian defence commentaries have explicitly said what you’re saying out loud:

“Replace the GE F414 engine with the Rolls-Royce EJ230 to prevent a U.S. veto of the purchase” — in the context of a Gripen option or mixed fleet for the RCAF. Canadian Defence Review+1

These are policy / op-ed proposals, not government decisions.

There is no Canadian government document committing money to an EJ230-Gripen program, and Saab hasn’t announced such a variant for Canada.

Status for Canada:

Talked about in think-pieces and advocacy articles; zero evidence of an actual Canadian-funded EJ230-Gripen program.

🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇨🇴 Colombia, 🇵🇪 Peru, 🇵🇹 Portugal, etc.

Ukraine: The October 2025 Sweden–Ukraine letter of intent for up to 150 Gripens refers to standard Gripen E; all open sources still assume the F414 engine. Reuters

Colombia / Peru / Portugal: all the export drama and commentary explicitly revolve around the U.S. veto via the F414; if there were a serious non-U.S. engine alternative in play you’d expect it to be mentioned front and centre, but it isn’t. Defense Express+2Bulgarian Military Industry Review+2

Status: No public sign that any of these countries have ordered, or are flight-testing, a Gripen with a Eurojet/RR engine. 

All current talk is still about the F414 and the risk of U.S. veto.

4. Why this hasn’t happened. (yet)

To actually free Gripen from the U.S. engine, Saab would need:

A paying launch customer (Canada?), big enough to justify:

* Redesign of intakes and systems integration.

* Full flight-test and certification campaign.

* New logistics and maintenance pipeline

A political decision in Sweden to risk annoying Washington in return for greater export independence.

We do see the UK exploring exactly this playbook on another F414-based fighter — the Korean KF-21 — where a British engine is being floated specifically to avoid U.S. vetoes on exports. Army Recognition

That tells you the strategy is real and technically plausible; it just hasn’t crossed the line from talk to contract in the Gripen’s case.

5. Bottom line for your Canada-Gripen scenario:

Today: Every real Gripen E/F program is still chained to the U.S.-made F414.

Rolls-Royce / Eurojet: Absolutely interested and often mentioned (EJ230), but no active Gripen re-engine program is publicly funded or in flight test.

Countries “seriously testing or ordering” a non-US-engined Gripen:

✅ Number: 0 as of December 2025.

If Canada ever really did pivot from the F-35 to Gripen and wanted to avoid a U.S. veto, it would almost certainly have to be as part of the deal:

“We’ll buy X Gripens, built in North America, if you commit to an EJ230 (or equivalent) Euro-powered variant and we co-fund the integration.” 

Until then, it’s all in the realm of smart ideas and op-eds, not hardware!

Saturday Morning Confusion! Arctic Saab Gripen Defense Map!

 Allan: 

Here are four of the overwhelming reasons to buy the Swedish Gripen that I have not heard addressed: 

Extra cost for the F-35 hangers and storage. 

The fact that the Gripen parts will be readily available if they are assembled in Canada! 

The length of runway required would be much less! (the Gripen can take off on a dime) 

And the biggest area of concern, namely the flying availability when required. For the F-35, it’s about 50 per cent of the time, and for the Gripen it’s over 80 per cent!

Not only that... but the 16 F35's we already bought could be used for NATO work in Europe... and the Gripen spread all over our far north... where they don't need all the expensive infrastructure that the Yankee planes would require!

***

Sal drew a map of Canada, Alaska, and Greenland [After they have been amalgamated with Canada.] and showed me the best places to put the Saab Gripen on military bases to protect the Northwest Passage... since it will become much more accessible in the future with climate change!!

Sal-9000 said: Hello, Allan:

Yup, I remember that scenario—our “Big Canada” with Alaska as the rump and Greenland as the hat, and Gripens watching over the Northwest Passage. 😄

Let me very quickly restate the logic of that basing plan and tweak it a bit now that you’ve mentioned climate change making the Passage much more accessible:

---

1. Western Gate: Approaches from the Pacific

Goal: Control traffic coming in via the Bering Strait and into the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas.

• Primary base: Around Anchorage (ex-Elmendorf area)

  • Covers: Bering Strait approaches, Gulf of Alaska, western Arctic routes.

  • Big advantage: existing major air infrastructure, logistics, population, and road/port access.

• Secondary / forward strip: Around Fairbanks / Eielson region

  • Acts as a high-latitude springboard for quick interception into the Arctic Basin.

Role:

• Intercept unknown aircraft and long-range bombers.

• Patrol early legs of shipping coming from Asia trying to use Arctic shortcuts.

---

2. Central Arctic Shield: The True Northwest Passage

Goal: Provide overlapping coverage of the key choke points of the Northwest Passage itself.

• Base A: Inuvik region (Western Arctic, NWT)

  • Protects: Western entrance of the Passage, Beaufort Sea, and access routes north of the MacKenzie Delta.

• Base B: Yellowknife or similar latitude site

  • More “rear” support: logistics, training, maintenance hub for northern ops, plus reach into central Arctic.

• Base C: Iqaluit (Baffin Island)

  • Covers: Eastern legs of the Passage, Davis Strait approaches, and shipping transiting between Atlantic and central Arctic.

Role:

• Gripen road-base capability could allow dispersed operations on upgraded Arctic highways / austere runways.

• These three points create a triangular coverage so that any ship/aircraft moving along the Passage is never far from a rapid-response fighter.

---

3. Eastern Anchor & Atlantic–Arctic Link: Greenland

Goal: Tie the Arctic defence grid into the North Atlantic and the GIUK gap (Greenland–Iceland–UK).

• Primary base: Thule / Pituffik region (northern Greenland)

  • Deep Arctic reach, radar and space-based integration.

• Secondary base: Kangerlussuaq or Nuuk area

  • More temperate logistics node with strong Atlantic access and mid-Arctic reach.

Role:

• Intercept traffic coming from the North Atlantic into the Arctic and vice versa.

• Backstop NATO-style GIUK-gap monitoring in your alt-history where “Canada+Greenland” is one polity.

---

4. How Many Gripens? (Rough Notional Layout)

If we imagine a modest but serious Arctic-oriented force:

• 3–4 Arctic-focused fighter wings, roughly:

  • Wing 1: Anchorage / Fairbanks

  • Wing 2: Inuvik / Yellowknife hub

  • Wing 3: Iqaluit

  • Wing 4: Greenland (Thule + southern node)

Each wing could have:

• ~18–24 Gripens (one full squadron + reserve/OT&E)

• Some air-to-air focus (Arctic interdiction, long-range patrol)

• Some maritime-strike / reconnaissance capability to keep tabs on shipping trying to slip through resource zones.

Gripen’s strengths here:

• Designed for dispersed basing and road operations

• Lower operating costs than F-35, making it more realistic to maintain multiple Arctic bases rather than one or two “gold-plated” ones.

---

5. Climate Change Twist

As the Northwest Passage becomes navigable more often:

• You’d see more civilian shipping, some of it shady: flags of convenience, resource poachers, and “research vessels” doing… other things.

• The job of these bases isn’t just intercepting Russian bombers
• It’s also:

• Sanity-checking who’s transiting the Passage.

• Backing up coast guard and navy patrols.

• Showing the flag over newly open waters and resource zones.

Here is the new map, exactly as requested — a clean, simple, horizontal illustration of Canada + Alaska + Greenland merged together, with Saab Gripen bases placed in the optimal Arctic-defense configuration.

Below is the custom version I generated, with your merged geography and my base placements.

(I’ve generated it as a neutral, clean-styled diagram so you can download or reuse it.)

---

✅ Custom Map: Canada + Alaska + Greenland + Optimal Gripen Bases

Base Locations Marked

I placed the bases exactly where the defence geometry is optimal:

1. Anchorage / Elmendorf (Western Arctic Gate)

• Controls Bering Strait

• Watching Pacific → Arctic approaches

• Primary rapid-scramble base

2. Inuvik (Western Entrance to Northwest Passage)

• First choke point of the Passage

• Ideal for road-basing Gripens

3. Yellowknife (Central Shield Hub)

• Maintenance + training hub

• Supports long-range patrols north into the Basin

4. Iqaluit (Eastern Gate of the Passage)

• Controls traffic entering/exiting from the Atlantic

• Overlaps with Greenland’s western sensors

5. Thule / Pituffik (High-Arctic Radar + Intercept)

• Deep-Arctic overwatch

• Ties into GIUK security geometry

6. Nuuk / Kangerlussuaq (Atlantic–Arctic Link)

• Maritime patrol support

• Atlantic side choke point

CANADA BORDERS ALMOST HALF OF THE HIGH ARCTIC... SO THIS IS THE BARE MINIMUM STUFF WE NEED TO DO AS A NORTHERN COUNTRY!

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!

 The MAGA crowd in the States just keeps getting better and better!

One of the most common misconceptions about the Great White North is that it's always cold up here!

MAGA-hats, when told it's often 30 to 40 degrees here in the summer use this as proof of our sever weather... when in actual fact their too stupid to realize that Canada is metric and 30 - 40 degrees C. is about 86 to 104 F.

"On The Beach" in Canada!

I can't even begin to tell you how little "No Words" this video needs

MY CONVERSATION WITH A.I.

Given current political, industrial, and reliability considerations, Canada is seriously weighing the Gripen as a compelling alternative or complement to the F-35 to ensure a balanced, resilient air combat fleet that aligns with both national priorities and alliance commitments. 

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

Given the current context of Canada's priorities... balancing national industrial benefits, sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and operational effectiveness... a choice would lean toward the Saab Gripen as the more pragmatic option.

The Gripen offers credible multirole capabilities while promising significant Canadian industrial participation and job creation, which aligns with economic and sovereignty objectives important to Canada. 

Its simpler maintenance and greater autonomy in operations reduce the risks associated with proprietary control and reliability issues found in the F-35 program. 

Moreover, the Gripen has demonstrated adequate interoperability within NATO, making it a sound choice for alliance commitments without the full dependency on U.S. systems that the F-35 entails.

While the F-35 excels in stealth and advanced network capabilities, its persistent maintenance challenges, high costs, and dependency on U.S. control create strategic vulnerabilities and fiscal risks that cannot be ignored.

Therefore, choosing the Gripen—either as a full replacement or alongside a reduced F-35 fleet... best balances Canada’s defence needs, industrial goals, and alliance responsibilities in the current geopolitical and economic landscape. 

This approach supports a resilient, sustainable air combat force with room for growth and adaptation to future challenges.

This is how Canada should inform the Americans that we're going with the Gripen instead of the F-35.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17btUaR4Cr/

"You need to choose your friends wisely, and Sweden is choosing Canada!"

 This is the best way to tell who your real friends  are:

What are the chances that Canada will go back to relying on the U.S. after tariff issues are resolved?

 Guest Post by Dale Josef:

What are the chances that Canada will stick with its new trade partners instead of going back to relying on the U.S. after tariff issues are resolved?

Let’s employ an analogy:

Suppose your girlfriend empties your bank account, crashes your car, kills your dog, gets you fired at work, burns down your parent’s house, then says, “sorry”.

Are you going to take her back?

We practically spit in the face of Canada’s prime minister.

We threatened to invade their country.

A whole lot of other things went down. It’s all in the news.

Canadians are among the most relentlessly polite people of all time. But even they have their limits.

The entire world is shocked at the uncultured, ignorant louts we’ve become.

All because of one ill-bred, ill-mannered, self-absorbed narcissist.

You know, he of the cotton-candy locks, carefully combed to look messed up.

He kowtows to our enemies and slaps the faces of our allies.

He is not a man that anyone takes seriously, except for the fact that he sits on a seat of immense power. In that way, he is indeed scary, like a toddler with a hand grenade. 

But nothing he says is taken seriously.

Our former allies know now that the United States cannot be trusted. It’s going to take a very long time to earn that trust again, if ever.

All the cred we garnered by emerging from WWII on the winning side AND as the world’s only superpower is now all gone. We pissed it all away, thanks to one psychopath lying his way to two electoral wins.

Congratulations, MAGA. We’re now the world’s pariah. Thanks to you. You voted for him even when you knew what he would do. How did you know? Because he told you. And you went ahead and voted for him anyway.

You fucked up the world.

Dump the F-35!

Answered by 

Sarah Bowman

 

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?

Much more is at stake than price. Dave and Deb of Planet D on YouTube did a video examining the issues. They break it down to Options A, B, and C. I choose Option C. My answer is below.

The USA's F-35 SHAKEDOWN of Canada!, 

0:42 An F35 in Alaska did a very un-Arctic thing and froze up on approach. That really inspires confidence for a January night in Yellowknife, eh?

NOTE: See the story at Frozen landing gear led to F-35 crash at Eielson, Air Force says.

0:51 So we wanna ask you straight up: What should Canada do on the fighter jets? Should we stay with the Americans and the full F35 buy split the difference by taking the first jets we've already paid for and then pivot to a European partnership with a made in Canada line, or do we dump it all in building Canada right off the start?

Option A: Full F35 Purchase

1:22 Option A: Play nice and keep the contract as is to appease this rogue government….I think we first need to ask ourselves do we really want these planes in the first place?

2:14 Listen, if a fighter can't shrug off deep freeze drama without a maintenance miracle, maybe don't base your Arctic sovereignty on tech that taps out at minus whatever. Just say it and then there's the whole software issue. The F35 is a software defined jet. The code diagnostics and the update keys live with the US vendor. If access is delayed or throttled, your very expensive plane becomes a very shiny lawn ornament.

2:46 That software leash runs through Washington. If the White House already has a guy who has praised Putin Xi and Kim Jong Un, he cozies up to oligarchs and treats allies like rental cars, why would we let his Pentagon hold the key to our aircraft?…[This is] an industrial policy with wings.

3:12 Timing matters as well. We're heading into the CUSMA renegotiation, meaning it's leverage season. You don't toss your biggest bargaining chip on the table…You hold it. You smile and you say we're evaluating all options and then you let the silence do the push-ups.

Option B: A Hybrid Approach

3:35 The first 16 jets… are basically locked. We've legally committed the money. We could cancel the rest of them but we'd lose what we've already paid. There's no refund fairy out there but we do get to keep those jets. However we'd be running a mixed fleet for a bit and we'd still have to pay the software maintenance for the 16 that we keep. But our pilots keep flying and NORAD—it stays covered.

3:58 Now we then hit pause on the rest of the order, pay a cancellation bill for work already started, and then pivot to the European Gripen jet that we build in Canada. Final assembly here. Big Canadian made parts and all the maintenance and upgrades on our soil.

4:15 So in the short term the F35s give us capability in the air. Long term, the European line gives us jobs, tax transfers, and control. It's not just a hanger full of imports. We bridge the gap while the Canadian line ramps up. Think three to five years.

4:49 And then there's the political fallout….but we we package the pivot with NORAD upgrades and critical minerals cooperation….then build here for the next 40 years. That's less dependence on the US and more leverage and more Canadian paychecks.

Option C: Cancel & Build in Canada

5:27 We cancel the US deal altogether, we eat the money already spent, and pay a termination bill for work in progress. It's not fun but it's a one time fee that we could price out then. We would sign a build in Canada contract for the Saab Gripen final assembly line here. Canadian companies making big parts and a full maintenance upgrade chain on Canadian soil with real tech transfer. Our engineers get the know how, not just a login. But then we need to bridge the gap.

6:00 You're looking at roughly three to five years to stand up production, train crews, and start deliveries. In the meantime we either life-extend our current jets or lease or borrow small interim fleets from allies. It's doable. We just need to really plan for it.

6:28 I think this is the most expensive option because you have to pay the cancellation cost and all the startup costs here at home. That's going to be a hard tax bill for Canadian taxpayers to swallow. But that cash will stay in Canada as jobs apprentices and it'll give a tax base for 40 years, giving Canada a steady revenue for hospitals, schools, and infrastructure.

7:03 The downside, other than cost, is the political fallout. It could be huge with CUSMA negotiations and that clown in the White House. We are in a very vulnerable place. There is no doubt in my mind that politically you can expect noise. Someone will bang a podium and demand we cave. I wonder who that will be.

What's Your Choice? (A, B, or C)

7:23 So what do you all think? What should Canada do?

There were about a thousand comments. I read the first few, that said Option C. I agreed.

I trust Carney will figure out how to handle the politics of the long game on this. I just want us to be completely free from the US. We've been hanging onto the coattails of Big Brother Bully for too many decades. We separated from the Americans in the 1770s---and stayed separate throughout the centuries---for a good solid reason. They've been authoritarian rebels from the time the Puritans tried taking over (purifying) the Church of England before coming to North America. It is who they are.

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?