bush_cheney2004 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 With a canadian public weary against american anything and a world power like the US as your neighbour whom will be very pissed if you dont help them there really isnt any choice other than to act like this Well, at least you are honest enough to admit it. Few do... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
fellowtraveller Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 If we got involved in this war it would ruin our economy depends on how much we got involved. If we kept costs down, we'd be economic winners because any scrap in the Middle East would send oil prices up rapidly, which would be to our benefit. Even the threat of war would ave that effect. On the other hand, Dalton McSquinty would be vewy, vewy angwee. Quote The government should do something.
olpfan1 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 Well, at least you are honest enough to admit it. Few do... Its just Canadas liberal way of trying to please both sides Harper is the opposite so I expect Canada to be at the front of every conflict in the next 4 years Quote
olpfan1 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 depends on how much we got involved. If we kept costs down, we'd be economic winners because any scrap in the Middle East would send oil prices up rapidly, which would be to our benefit. Even the threat of war would ave that effect. On the other hand, Dalton McSquinty would be vewy, vewy angwee. Afghanistan type occupation will ruin us Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 6, 2012 Report Posted March 6, 2012 Afghanistan type occupation will ruin us who said we would be occupying Iran? and A'Ghan has had little effect on commodity prices anywhere, unless you consider heroin a commodity. Quote The government should do something.
capricorn Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) Its just Canadas liberal way of trying to please both sides Also known as fence-sitting. Edited March 7, 2012 by capricorn Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
GostHacked Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 who said we would be occupying Iran? and A'Ghan has had little effect on commodity prices anywhere, unless you consider heroin a commodity. It's a commodity. Think pharmaceuticals! Quote
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) depends on how much we got involved. If we kept costs down, we'd be economic winners because any scrap in the Middle East would send oil prices up rapidly, which would be to our benefit. Even the threat of war would ave that effect. On the other hand, Dalton McSquinty would be vewy, vewy angwee. Wouldn't higher oil prices (as in skyrocketing prices) be a big drag on the global economy? War with Iran would be an economic clusterf___. What is with all this World War 3 and occupation talk? Any Israeli or American strike would hit air defenses and nuclear sites to slow down the nuclear program. While things would get out of hand when Iran retaliates via Hezbollah and other militants etc in Iraq and Afghanistan (maybe) and it would be VERY destabilizing to the region I don't see how any troops get sent to Iran. Especially since I don't see troops going to Syria and there is already somewhat of an insurgency there. God they aren't even willing to provide air support to set up humanitarian corridors in Syria. What makes people think anyone would send troops to Iran? And what country would side with Iran in a WW3 scenario? Isn't Syria there only really ally? and Assad has his own problems. I don't even see Hamas siding with Iran and Iran provides them with weapons and cash. Edited March 7, 2012 by j44 Quote
dre Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 who said we would be occupying Iran? Because when these politicians and generals bumble us into wars that dont benefit us in places we know nothing about, they have no idea whats going to happen. Iran might just accept being bombed and not retaliate, but they also might respond by raining rockets down on Israel, sinking ships in the straights, or through its various proxies. If they do this theres a good change there will be a ground war. Consider also the fact that regime change is the ONLY way to really stop Irans nuclear program. Anything else will just set it back a bit. These people dont have a clue what theyre doing. We were only supposed to be in Afghanistan for a couple of short years, and we are still there a decade later. Iraq was going to "take a few months" and "cost a few million dollars". It took 10 years and cost 3 trillion. Truth is we have no idea what these morons will get us into, how long it take, or how much blood and treasure will be wasted. These adventures are akin to gambling a lot of borrowed money in a casino with no prizes up for grabs. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 ... Iraq was going to "take a few months" and "cost a few million dollars". It took 10 years and cost 3 trillion. Sounds more like the Gun Registry than the war in Iraq. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Because when these politicians and generals bumble us into wars that dont benefit us in places we know nothing about, they have no idea whats going to happen. Iran might just accept being bombed and not retaliate, but they also might respond by raining rockets down on Israel, sinking ships in the straights, or through its various proxies. If they do this theres a good change there will be a ground war. Consider also the fact that regime change is the ONLY way to really stop Irans nuclear program. Anything else will just set it back a bit. These people dont have a clue what theyre doing. We were only supposed to be in Afghanistan for a couple of short years, and we are still there a decade later. Iraq was going to "take a few months" and "cost a few million dollars". It took 10 years and cost 3 trillion. Truth is we have no idea what these morons will get us into, how long it take, or how much blood and treasure will be wasted. These adventures are akin to gambling a lot of borrowed money in a casino with no prizes up for grabs. I think even the most hawkish hawks aren't advocating a ground war and US policy isn't regime change. The US is clearly not in the position to launch a ground war. Could there be mission creep? Yes but I think they will do everything to avoid that. I just don't see how it gets to a ground war when both parties know they will bleed from such a situation. And I think that the US could be ok with just setting the clock back on the nuclear program for now. Quote
dre Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 I think even the most hawkish hawks aren't advocating a ground war and US policy isn't regime change. The US is clearly not in the position to launch a ground war. Could there be mission creep? Yes but I think they will do everything to avoid that. I just don't see how it gets to a ground war when both parties know they will bleed from such a situation. And I think that the US could be ok with just setting the clock back on the nuclear program for now. The most hawkish hawks didnt advocate spending 20 years combined in Iraq and Afghanistan either. Like I said we have no idea what will happen, or what kind of quagmire they will bubble themselves into. Were just throwing expensive dice on a craps table with more prizes. The biggest prize we can win, is losing millions of dollars with no direct benefit or return on investment. Victory means losing. Defeat means losing big. Under no concievable scenario does Canada come out ahead, unless we stay home and spend that money here on our own aging infrastructure that we are 230 billion dollars behind on maintaining and upgrading. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 The most hawkish hawks didnt advocate spending 20 years combined in Iraq and Afghanistan either. Like I said we have no idea what will happen, or what kind of quagmire they will bubble themselves into. Were just throwing expensive dice on a craps table with more prizes. The biggest prize we can win, is losing millions of dollars with no direct benefit or return on investment. Victory means losing. Defeat means losing big. Under no concievable scenario does Canada come out ahead, unless we stay home and spend that money here on our own aging infrastructure that we are 230 billion dollars behind on maintaining and upgrading. But they advocated going into Iraq in the first place. They aren't doing that now. I think you are just assuming they will make the same mistakes and blindly gambling when it seems clear to me they have a policy that doesn't lead to war and will avoid it if at all possible. I'd bet my life that Canada doesn't get involved with any war with Iran unless Iran attacks the US directly. Quote
dre Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 But they advocated going into Iraq in the first place. They aren't doing that now. I think you are just assuming they will make the same mistakes and blindly gambling when it seems clear to me they have a policy that doesn't lead to war and will avoid it if at all possible. I'd bet my life that Canada doesn't get involved with any war with Iran unless Iran attacks the US directly. Like I said... You have no idea whats going to happen. Iran has a whole bunch of different ways to cause trouble if it decides to retaliate against Israel, and against all kinds of western interests in the gulf, including the worlds most important oil shipping corridor. WHen you punch someone in the face it sometimes starts a fight. If Canada participates then it means Canadian interests in the region are legitimate targets. We have absolutely no idea whether this will just be a matter of a few airstrikes, or if it will escalate into a bigger conflict. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Like I said... You have no idea whats going to happen. Iran has a whole bunch of different ways to cause trouble if it decides to retaliate against Israel, and against all kinds of western interests in the gulf, including the worlds most important oil shipping corridor. WHen you punch someone in the face it sometimes starts a fight. If Canada participates then it means Canadian interests in the region are legitimate targets. We have absolutely no idea whether this will just be a matter of a few airstrikes, or if it will escalate into a bigger conflict. You are right I don't know what will happen. My point is that it is a mistake to just assume they are going to war. se if they will just stumble into it without calculating carefully or by disregarding the consequences. The talk here seemed to not only assume that but to jump to boots on the ground, occupation and World War 3. And again to my point I don't see a punch in the face yet or on the horizon. Quote
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 talk here seemed to not only assume that but to jump to boots on the ground, occupation and World War 3. All kinds of things can escalate, if the U.K, U.S is mired in a war with Iran then Argentina could take the Falklands and since they are backed up this time by many South & Central American countries there would be escalation on that front...as you know Iran is also allies with many of those countries currently Then there's Russia, China, India whom all need Iran Pakistan is on the Iranian side, Afghanistan & Iraq are too There is just too many countries that would get mixed up in this ..it's way too risky Quote
Smallc Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 All kinds of things can escalate, if the U.K, U.S is mired in a war with Iran then Argentina could take the Falklands Unlikely Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 ....There is just too many countries that would get mixed up in this ..it's way too risky Really? Where were you when Saddam needed you? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Really? Where were you when Saddam needed you? look what happened in Iraq, thanks to you getting rid of Saddam (Iran's # 1 enemy at the time) look at the power vacuum you created Quote
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 All kinds of things can escalate, if the U.K, U.S is mired in a war with Iran then Argentina could take the Falklands and since they are backed up this time by many South & Central American countries there would be escalation on that front...as you know Iran is also allies with many of those countries currently Then there's Russia, China, India whom all need Iran Pakistan is on the Iranian side, Afghanistan & Iraq are too There is just too many countries that would get mixed up in this ..it's way too risky Are you saying all these countries would side with IRan in a war??? Quote
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 Are you saying all these countries would side with IRan in a war??? Are you under the assumption that Iran has no allies? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 look what happened in Iraq, thanks to you getting rid of Saddam (Iran's # 1 enemy at the time) look at the power vacuum you created Yeah...Iran looks real "powerful" now, as several nations decide where and when to attack its nuclear facilities. So with your expert analysis vis-a-vis U.K. bogged down in Iraq, why didn't Argentina take back Las Malvinas? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) So with your expert analysis vis-a-vis U.K. bogged down in Iraq, why didn't Argentina take back Las Malvinas? U.K was bogged down sure but they have had to cut their military drastically this past year meanwhile back then their military was all up and running Edited March 7, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 I love how there are a lot of simple minded people on this board though that believe no country will have Iran's back, you clearly are not taking every consideration into account You think it will be just a minor bombing campaign... yeah okay, what are you people smoking? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 U.K was bogged down sure but they have had to cut their military drastically this past year meanwhile back then their military was all up and running Oh, so now Argentina can jump 'em before anybody notices? Oh what is a Queen to do? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.