I understand the posts about what you guys don't think I understand about the subject but you've got me wrong. Trust me I get it, as I tried to explain my post was about the hypocrisy and I thought it was tongue in cheek enough to make it obvious. I have plenty of fire fire fighter and Canadian military acquaintances and we've been talking about this for for what seems like a few decades. I've been evacuated from northern Alberta myself. I get it.
I don't know the intricacies of US politics and what it takes to move money around, I understand the Canadian bullshit just slightly better.
As I'm guessing you are aware this isn't a new problem, wildfires breaking out shouldn't be a shock to anyone with a big political hammer yet it seems like most of the time both countries can get overwhelmed by lack of resources needed to swiftly deal with them. Why? Rhetorical question, I know many people could fill pages with sensible answers. Sensible doesn't mean it's right though.
The powers that be can often come up with massive sums really quickly if motivated, bail out some banks, automakers or fund a war even if their country is not directly involved. This war was just an easy example cause its current.
One more time, I get the logistical nightmares involved but the US came up with Multi Billions of dollars for this war, IDK know the actual total at the moment but the last number I remember hearing was a value of 75 billion in just over a year.
Would it be outrageous of me to say that if they put 20 billion into better more enticing pay, training and equipment over say the next few years they could take a big dent out of the damage these fires do?
I bet you could build a pretty effective small fleet of supertankers for a few billion bucks for example.
I just think there is a way but we will never see the will. Counter arguements for better use of that money are abundant of course.
Maybe I'm just simply biased on the subject from seeing too many complete towns or neighbourhoods wiped of the face of the earth.
