Canada at war with Iran

[olp1fan]

...finishing it.

Yeah I can see how nuking a country twice gives you pride

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah I can see how nuking a country twice gives you pride

Sure does..with killer Canadian uranium...keep it coming..."pacifist".

[Guest Derek L]

That's the great thing about pacifists...they won't do dick anyway.

Indeed......Plato observed thousands of years ago that "might does indeed make right"......

Edited November 14, 2011 by Derek L

[olp1fan]

Sure does..with killer Canadian uranium...keep it coming..."pacifist".

and Canadian scientists

I am ashamed

[bush_cheney2004]

and Canadian scientists

I am ashamed

Pacifists should be...others died for your ideology to have a place to live.

Edited November 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[olp1fan]

Pacifists should be...others died for your ideology to have a place to live.

their choice, not mine

[dre]

Indeed......Plato observed thousands of years ago that "might does indeed make right"......

He also recommended lying to the populous about the nature of external threats to get them to support the goals of the philospher/political class.

[Guest Derek L]

Pacifists should be...others died for your ideology to have a place to live.

Well said, I’ll mention that to my father next time we talk, he lost his older brother in the North Atlantic and cousin in Burma.

[Guest Derek L]

He also recommended lying to the populous about the nature of external threats to get them to support the goals of the philospher/political class.

And both points are still valid today.

[dre]

And both points are still valid today.

Absolutely... Even MORE valid today. Plato would be absolutely astounded at how easily we fall for this, and how willing we are to undermine our own personal interests, and how easily fooled we are.

Thats why when political leaders tell us that its in our interest to spend 10s of billions of dollars over there to have 10's of thousands of Canadian kids over there trying to kill tens of thousands of Iranian kids over things most Iranians dont support ANYWAYS we should be very very suspicious and we should demand that this policy get put to a full cost benfit analysis.

Edited November 14, 2011 by dre

[olp1fan]

interesting article about israeli newspapers insinuating mossad is responsible for the explosion in iran

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099376,00.html?xid=gonewsedit

it would explain this

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/israel-hails-blast-at-iran-guards/story-e6frg6so-1226194250209

apparently there was just one big explosion instead of multiple which are common with amunition depot explosions

it was felt 25 miles away in tehran

which is strong

this was not an accident

Edited November 14, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest Derek L]

Absolutely... Even MORE valid today. Plato would be absolutely astounded at how easily we fall for this, and how willing we are to undermine our own personal interests, and how easily fooled we are.

Thats why when political leaders tell us that its in our interest to spend 10s of billions of dollars over there to have 10's of thousands of Canadian kids over there trying to kill tens of thousands of Iranian kids over things most Iranians dont support ANYWAYS we should be very very suspicious and we should demand that this policy get put to a full cost benfit analysis.

Well that point is what needs to be defined…….Are secure resources, that ensure our standard of living, in our personal interests? I tend to think so, based on a somewhat educated opinion, but I can not produce, as you suggested, a vetted cost benefits analysis in favour, just as you can’t produce one against.

As I’ve stated in other threads, I supported the strategic strategy used in Libya, and though I supported our involvement in Afghanistan, I don’t agree with “nation building”…….Be it, Afghanistan, Iraq II, or Blue Beret UN sponsored peacekeeping……..

To qualify myself, any military intervention by the West against Iran, that used a modern day form of “gunboat diplomacy” is what I’d be in favour, and not the occupation and subsidized rebuilding of said country like Iraq of Afghanistan.

I would opine that Iraq and Afghanistan could have both seen the original said objectives (regime change) met with such strategy as opposed to reconstruction and the “draining of the swamp”……When/if the Hydra’s head(s) return, smash them again…..

I liken the failed strategy of nation building to a Heavyweight champion boxer, administering first aid after the fight on his defeated opponent.

[olp1fan]

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/News/tabid/178/nid/23013/language/en-US/Default.aspx

A massive explosion at a missile base near the Iranian capital of Tehran on Saturday that killed 17 Revolutionary Guards was speculated by some to have been the work of Israel.

The base is said to be a storage center for some of Iran's advanced Shahab 3 ballistic missiles, which can hit Israel. Among those killed in the blast was one of the heads of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iranian media said the explosion was the result of a work accident that occurred when certain munitions were being moved around.

But it was impossible to ignore the fact that the incident came just days after Israel had so publicly debated whether or not to launch a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear and long-range missile facilities.

Adding to suspicions was an Iranian journalist who told the local Mehr news agency that despite the large number of casualties, only six hand-picked paramedics had been permitted to enter the facility.

On Sunday a Palestinian businessman who had recently returned from Iran told Voice of Israel that Iranians with dual citizenship are fleeing the country.

The Palestinian man said most Iranians believe Israel will soon launch a devastating attack against their country that will lead to an even more devastating regional war, and they are looking to get out while they can.

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a report that confirmed Iran was designing nuclear weapons, and could field as many as four warheads in the very near future. The report sparked heated debate in Israel over whether or not to launch a preemptive strike, as Israel did against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007.

A poll commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League last week found that 57 percent of Americans support an Israeli strike on Iran.

The French website Le Canarad Enchaine cited French intelligence sources last week as saying that the US had recently provided Israel with an additional 55 bunker buster bombs, presumably for use against Iran. (via Israel Matzav)

[dre]

Well that point is what needs to be defined…….Are secure resources, that ensure our standard of living, in our personal interests? I tend to think so, based on a somewhat educated opinion, but I can not produce, as you suggested, a vetted cost benefits analysis in favour, just as you can’t produce one against.

As I’ve stated in other threads, I supported the strategic strategy used in Libya, and though I supported our involvement in Afghanistan, I don’t agree with “nation building”…….Be it, Afghanistan, Iraq II, or Blue Beret UN sponsored peacekeeping……..

To qualify myself, any military intervention by the West against Iran, that used a modern day form of “gunboat diplomacy” is what I’d be in favour, and not the occupation and subsidized rebuilding of said country like Iraq of Afghanistan.

I would opine that Iraq and Afghanistan could have both seen the original said objectives (regime change) met with such strategy as opposed to reconstruction and the “draining of the swamp”……When/if the Hydra’s head(s) return, smash them again…..

I liken the failed strategy of nation building to a Heavyweight champion boxer, administering first aid after the fight on his defeated opponent.

To qualify myself, any military intervention by the West against Iran, that used a modern day form of “gunboat diplomacy” is what I’d be in favour, and not the occupation and subsidized rebuilding of said country like Iraq of Afghanistan.

One thing leads to the other. If Iran is attacked it will retaliate and things will escalate. We will likely be forced to occupy Iran in order to keep the shipping lanes open, or at least the coastal part of it.

Edited November 14, 2011 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

One thing leads to the other. If Iran is attacked it will retaliate and things will escalate. We will likely be forced to occupy Iran in order to keep the shipping lanes open, or at least the coastal part of it.

I don’t think anyone has suggested an occupation of Iran, that would be next to imposable…….Even after the Greek victory at Mycale it was deemed not plausible……..The shipping lanes were kept open when both the Iraqis and Iranians were targeting the foreign tankers …….Even with sustained Iranian aggression, operation Nimble Archer was achieved with little effort.

[dre]

I don’t think anyone has suggested an occupation of Iran, that would be next to imposable…….Even after the Greek victory at Mycale it was deemed not plausible……..The shipping lanes were kept open when both the Iraqis and Iranians were targeting the foreign tankers …….Even with sustained Iranian aggression, operation Nimble Archer was achieved with little effort.

Youre just more optimistic than I am. Every time we think these interventions are going to be easy... and every time they cause more problems than they solve. IMO you are tragically underestimating Irans abililty to cause a lot of problems in retaliation to any western sponsored attack.

The idea that this is going to be over with a nice quick air compaign reminds me of how the Americans were told Iraq would take about 6 months and cost "a few million dollars". And it reminds me how we are still pouring blood and treasure into the sand in Afghanistan a decade later.

Luckily theres a solution that doesnt involve massive national borrowing and another decade long military commitment! If you want to help Israel kill Iranians you can MAIL THEM A CHECK!

Edited November 14, 2011 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

...Luckily theres a solution that doesnt involve massive national borrowing and another decade long military commitment! If you want to help Israel kill Iranians you can MAIL THEM A CHECK!

"We" do.

[dre]

"We" do.

Then go nuts.

[Guest Derek L]

Youre just more optimistic than I am. Every time we think these interventions are going to be easy... and every time they cause more problems than they solve. IMO you are tragically underestimating Irans abililty to cause a lot of problems in retaliation to any western sponsored attack.

The idea that this is going to be over with a nice quick air compaign reminds me of how the Americans were told Iraq would take about 6 months and cost "a few million dollars". And it reminds me how we are still pouring blood and treasure into the sand in Afghanistan a decade later.

Luckily theres a solution that doesnt involve massive national borrowing and another decade long military commitment! If you want to help Israel kill Iranians you can MAIL THEM A CHECK!

How did Libya work out? The Falklands? Panama? Grenada? First Gulf War? World War II? What’s shared by these conflicts is that they all had clear objective and exit strategy..These examples differ vastly than the conflicts you cite…..

[dre]

How did Libya work out? The Falklands? Panama? Grenada? First Gulf War? World War II? What’s shared by these conflicts is that they all had clear objective and exit strategy..These examples differ vastly than the conflicts you cite…..

Most of those were not pre-emptive wars. Thats the difference. When your enemy's tanks are rolling across europe or into kuwait the objective and exit strategy are nicely laid out for you.

When youre going to war over something that MIGHT happen, and your act of war itself has the possibility of causing all kinds of unforseen consequences thats when things get murky.

How did Libya work out?

We have absolutely no idea. Thats my whole point. We had a guy in there who at least recently had been pretty easy for us to deal with. We decided to roll the dice, and its entirely unclear at this point whether this will be conducive to our own interests or not. Theres a good chance that we will end up with virulently anti western islamic governments in some of these places.

[olp1fan]

how'd Libya work out? why not ask women and children of Libya in a few years when you see the effects of Sharia Law

[dre]

how'd Libya work out? why not ask women and children of Libya in a few years when you see the effects of Sharia Law

And that of course is the problem. Its a roll of the dice. The next Lybian regime might be better for our interests in the region, or it might be worse.

And it costs billions of dollars to to pull the arm down on that slot machine and find out. And the question is... why is someone thats flat broke even in the casino in the first place.

[Guest Derek L]

Most of those were not pre-emptive wars. Thats the difference. When your enemy's tanks are rolling across europe or into kuwait the objective and exit strategy are nicely laid out for you.

When youre going to war over something that MIGHT happen, and your act of war itself has the possibility of causing all kinds of unforseen consequences thats when things get murky.

Pre-emptive or reactionary war doesn’t mater, in all these cases there where certain uncertainties (Is that a Rumsfield?)……….World War II’s end game was the capitulation of Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany…….The Falklands objective, reclaim the Islands……..The First Gulf War, liberate Kuwait……..In all these examples there were snags, setbacks and varying levels of defeat/loss, but there were clear strategic objectives, a willingness to wage total war to accomplish them and pre ordained finish line………If the Goal with Iran is to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons and disrupting the flow of oil in the Gulf, Strategic goals are set, the development & carrying out of said goals will be executed and there is a clear definition of success.

We have absolutely no idea. Thats my whole point. We had a guy in there who at least recently had been pretty easy for us to deal with. We decided to roll the dice, and its entirely unclear at this point whether this will be conducive to our own interests or not. Theres a good chance that we will end up with virulently anti western islamic governments in some of these places.

You’re mixing the endgame with an undefined future…….The goal for Libya was the end of violence against the rebels, regime change and the security of Western investments….all three accomplished………If Libya becomes a problem that threatens our interests in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 years time……whack’em again.

[Guest Derek L]

And that of course is the problem. Its a roll of the dice. The next Lybian regime might be better for our interests in the region, or it might be worse.

And it costs billions of dollars to to pull the arm down on that slot machine and find out. And the question is... why is someone thats flat broke even in the casino in the first place.

Who cares how the Libyan people are in a few years…..A long as our investments are safe and they don’t pose a threat towards us, let them run their country the way they want

[dre]

Pre-emptive or reactionary war doesn’t mater, in all these cases there where certain uncertainties (Is that a Rumsfield?)……….World War II’s end game was the capitulation of Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany…….The Falklands objective, reclaim the Islands……..The First Gulf War, liberate Kuwait……..In all these examples there were snags, setbacks and varying levels of defeat/loss, but there were clear strategic objectives, a willingness to wage total war to accomplish them and pre ordained finish line………If the Goal with Iran is to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons and disrupting the flow of oil in the Gulf, Strategic goals are set, the development & carrying out of said goals will be executed and there is a clear definition of success.

You’re mixing the endgame with an undefined future…….The goal for Libya was the end of violence against the rebels, regime change and the security of Western investments….all three accomplished………If Libya becomes a problem that threatens our interests in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 years time……whack’em again.

You’re mixing the endgame with an undefined future…….The goal for Libya was the end of violence against the rebels, regime change and the security of Western investments….all three accomplished………If Libya becomes a problem that threatens our interests in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 years time……whack’em again.

Yeah thats exactly my point. Once we decide its the policy of our country and the responsibility of our taxpayers to fix problems in the middle east it will never end. Always another mole to whack, and always dealing with the problems caused by your last few adventures. I would like to try something different.

Anyhow... you and I are starting to in circles and make the same points over again. Not much point in continuing with this particular angle. I respect your opinion and enjoyed the debate.

I would like to ask you one more thing though...

Your biggest concern seems to be energy security. You made it clear with numerous statements that if it wasnt for the worlds dependance on that energy youd could care less what happens over there.

In the last fifty years the west has probably spent in excess of 5 trillion of todays dollars over there. Trying to "fix" the middle east is by FAR the most expensive project that the human race has ever embarked on. Do you realize that we have probably spent more money on interventionalism in the middle east, then we have on ALL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN HISTORY ?

And a follow up question. If energy security is the goal and Canada has a spare 10 - 50 billion dollars kicking around... Dont you think we would do more for global energy security by developing our own energy assets and increasing our already rather large volume of oil exports, than we will by being a small bit-player in a G8 VS Iran entanglement? Not to mention putting that money into energy production would stimulate our economy and create jobs. Putting it into a war will simply create inflation and put a drain on our domestic economy.

Wouldnt money spent on energy production in politically stable Canada be more valuable to global supplies than causing instability in the middle east by exploding stuff?