Canada's role in an escalation in the war against Iran

[login]

Realizing Israel's statments that if it is to act it will hit before the early fall, and the fall being a little over a month away, and judging that Iran might respond violently to an Israeli attack should it succeed, and the Harper government generally being pro zionist, what might Canada's role be in the event of a war between Iran occuring against Israel. While the situation in Syria might promote a free for all, would Syria allow Iran to attack Israel through its land? What are the repercussions of Iran and Syria being dragged into a war against Syria? How might Canada get involved, would it send aircraft, troops to defend Israel? it is a small area, with forces on Cyprus and in Afghanistan, what is the response?

It seems clear the US timeline is a year or so, and for Israel it is only about a month. This is a pressing issue, and I find it hard that Canada would sideline itself under the current Harper adminisration, since the conservatives have a majority and it seems likely Nato might act, even with Tensions between Turkey and Israel.

If it was up to you, what would you do, how would you respond to a strike on Irans nuclear facilities, what do you think Iran would do, what would Canada's role be?

Do you think it would bring Russia and China and the other Shanghai 5 countries into the fray?

Already there is a chemical and biological weapons threat in Syria, NATO countries have already said they are backing terrorist groups in Syria bent on overthrow of the Syrian government. Canada supports those actions which is actually contrary to the UN charter. Taking the cost of Afghanistan into consideration, and Canada's active involvement, will Canada's role be limited to helping enforce a no fly zone against Iran and Syria? US officials also want a no drive zone. Will Canadian forces from Afghanistan be used in a war against Iran, even though they arn't active combat soldiers, or would they continue their training operation, even as Afghanistan becomes a major warzone as a nexus between China, Russia and Iran, and major transport route of military forces.

Would Cyprus base be used in the warr against Iran?

Since Syria already faces a war against NATO what does it have to loose in allying with Iran? Syria also faced an attack on its Nuclear facililties by Israel, is it inplasuaible, and can Russia and China afford to sit back and watch nato take out both countries that border it.

Only Iraq and Turkey seem likely landroutes. Turkey being a NATO countries seems odd, but already Turkey has one of the largest armies in the world. Meanwhile Iraq is a puppet state, with US forces being slowly lowered. If an attack comes through Turkey, may it then be used as an accomplice as a warfront against Israel? What if an attack comes through Iraq, would Iraq them become the route that Iran used?

Here is an article from yesterday that raising this issue, although this was not the inspiration for this post

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1240342--walkom-why-we-could-be-at-war-with-iran-by-november

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

[Argus]

Realizing Israel's statments that if it is to act it will hit before the early fall, and the fall being a little over a month away, and judging that Iran might respond violently to an Israeli attack should it succeed, and the Harper government generally being pro zionist, what might Canada's role be in the event of a war between Iran occuring against Israel. While the situation in Syria might promote a free for all, would Syria allow Iran to attack Israel through its land? What are the repercussions of Iran and Syria being dragged into a war against Syria? How might Canada get involved,

Israel is not going to attack Iran for the plain and simple reason that Iran has taken a good deal of care to disperse its nuclear facilities and to protect them. The scale of an air strike necessary to significantly delay Iran's goal of becoming a nuclear power is simply not within Israel's capability. The Americans could do it, though not easily, but that's most unlikely to happen without further provocations from Iran. Such an attack would allow the dictators in Iran and Syria to put on the mantle of anti-zionism and quell their opponents.

Canada has no role in either event aside from cheerleader. Israel has no need of what minor assistance (if any) we could provide, militarily speaking, to defend itself.

[login]

Why then are defence analyists claiming Israel's ability to act is within a window that will be closed early in the fall, when facilities are moved underground?

Over the last few days there have been a flury of news stories like this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-12/israel-to-hold-home-front-drill-amid-rise-in-iran-tensions-2-.html

A strike may also influence Republican support should israel survive between the strike and the electins and turnover in January if so, which has taken a harder line than democratcs on issues like War on Iran. Maybe I'm just reading it the wrong way.

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

[Wild Bill]

Why then are defence analyists claiming Israel's ability to act is within a window that will be closed early in the fall, when facilities are moved underground?

Over the last few days there have been a flury of news stories like this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-12/israel-to-hold-home-front-drill-amid-rise-in-iran-tensions-2-.html

A strike may also influence Republican support should israel survive between the strike and the electins and turnover in January if so, which has taken a harder line than democratcs on issues like War on Iran. Maybe I'm just reading it the wrong way.

There are analysts and there are analysts. Pick whichever ones support the premise you have already decided upon.

Have you not heard the old joke that if you have 2 economists in a room you have 3 opinions?

[login]

There are analysts and there are analysts. Pick whichever ones support the premise you have already decided upon.

Have you not heard the old joke that if you have 2 economists in a room you have 3 opinions?

Lets just hope its not harper bernardo and williams and someone else unsuspecting walks into the room

No sense huh?

http://community.feministing.com/2011/05/18/ben-steins-defense-of-dsk-economists-dont-rape-people/

Harper Bernardo and Williams are at an economics conference when the case study walks in. It is an attractive 30 some female with teenage daughters.

So the question is asked: How do we respond to improving the economy using this person as an example.

Williams goes first: I say we rape her for what she's worth to improve our situation. (version 2 - and take her panties - so we have a net material gain)

Bernardo follows: I say we rape her children. (version 2 and film it so we can use the tapes as a future commodity holding)

Harper is the last one to speak: I say we rape her and her children for all they're worth to improve our situation. (version 2 she's clearly a liberal public service employee) * man this is pretty bad joke..

(best I could do on the fly no offence to the families of those who have been effected by these monsters or the monsters themselves if undeserving.)

Edited August 13, 2012 by login

[cybercoma]

After that earthquake that killed hundreds of people and injured hundreds more, it would be a complete dirtbag move to attack Iran right now.

[login]

Yeah cause civilians don't get hurt in Airstrikes against civillian nuclear facilities?

And Israel has never struck when someones gaurd was weakened?

Hitting people in their weakest parts is a underlying principle of Israel's fighting style.

They have a sore leg hit it. THey have exposed organs hit it. They have eyes, remove them. etc...

Although the Turkey element is questionable one cannot deny the wonder of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey being 4 countries that tie into the Revalations.

The bible and chirstianity would be closed and Muslims could rest assured of no longer needing to compete against Christians for converts and followers.

http://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tigris-euphrates-river-map.jpg

http://mankindlastchance.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/mark-of-the-beast-final/

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

[eyeball]

After that earthquake that killed hundreds of people and injured hundreds more, it would be a complete dirtbag move to attack Iran right now.

Isn't the bible full of stories about evil apostate nations being visited upon by vanquishing armies and acts of God alike?

Not joining in the attack now might be the immoral choice here.

[Wild Bill]

Yeah cause civilians don't get hurt in AIrstrikes against civillian nuclear facilities?

And Israel has never struck when someones gaurd was weakened?

Hitting people in their weakest parts is a underlying principle of Israel's fighting style.

They havea sore leg hit it. THey have exposed organs hit it. They have eyes, remove them. etc...

Sorta like stories about how trees and rocks will shout out to Muslims that there is a Jew hiding behind them...

[-TSS-]

One must remember what a tiny plot of land Israel really is. Therefore it is essential for them to prevent any attacks on them as they could not survive in a similar fashion as their much larger neighbours.

[login]

One must remember what a tiny plot of land Israel really is. Therefore it is essential for them to prevent any attacks on them as they could not survive in a similar fashion as their much larger neighbours.

I'd think 250 nuclear weapons could take some ground they are warheads afterall not missiles.

A nuclear weapon even if only leveling a 1km^2 or so of land area still effects the srrounding areas too.

THe question that remains is, as the f35 begins to be delivered to nations like Israel, will this allow them to increase their capacities against the air defences of othernations without clearing a path with nuclear weapons. 250 bullets is afterall only 250 bullets.

Looking at these figures it isn't reassuring that these weapons would be used against anything but a concentration or urban area or base.

ISRAEL

weapon name Western designation weapon type stock entry IOC off alert retire stock warhead type est. number built yield

Lance Lance SRBM IP 0 20 kt

Luz Ya-1 Jericho I SRBM 1973 IP 50 20 kt

Luz Ya-1 Jericho I SRBM 1981 0 - 50 ~60 kt?

Luz Ya-3 Jericho II IRBM 1990 BF 50 ~200 kt?

Jericho III MRBM 0 ?

Shavit ICBM proposed BF 0

? proposed TN 0 ~1 mt?

SLCM 1999 2000 BF? 0 - 20

NGB 1966 IU 3 - 10 20 kt

NGB ~1971 IC? 0 - 20 ~20 kt

NGB 1973 IC? 0 - 50 ~60 kt

NGB 1981 BF 0 - 50 ~200 kt?

AFAP 1973 IP 0 - 50 ~10 kt?

(175 mm) AFAP ~1979 ER 0 - 150 ~3 kt?

(203 mm) AFAP ~1979 ER 0 - 20 ~3 kt?

ADM ~1973 IP 0 - 50 ~0.2 kt?

There are a few big ones in there but we arn't talkiNG 40 MT warheads like seen in Russia and the US.

Fukashima praboably put out more radiation than these would.

http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

Edited August 12, 2012 by login

[WWWTT]

An Israeli attack on Iran is very possible considering past US election timing.

And this in my opinion is the only factor that would make the war mongers in Israel expediate their attack.

However I doubt it since there is already so much volatility in the area since the Arab springs last year and the current crisis in Syria.

In fact I would not be surprised if the Israelis right now have absolutely no appetite for any aggressive actions.

Seeing almost every neighbouring Arab country go through civil wars must be very worrying!

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

And this in my opinion is the only factor that would make the war mongers in Israel expediate their attack.

WWWTT

What do you mean by "expediate"? I can't find that word in any dictionary.

[WWWTT]

What do you mean by "expediate"? I can't find that word in any dictionary.

It's a legitimate word.

Quicken or speed up.

For some reason the spell checks do not like it,but that's not new.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

It's a legitimate word.

Quicken or speed up.

For some reason the spell checks do not like it,but that's not new.

WWWTT

Hmm, spell checks don't like it. Neither do a couple of dictionaries. Yet you still insist it is a good word. How about a link to some dictionary?

Perhaps you meant "expedite"?

[Argus]

Yeah cause civilians don't get hurt in Airstrikes against civillian nuclear facilities?

And Israel has never struck when someones gaurd was weakened?

Hitting people in their weakest parts is a underlying principle of Israel's fighting style.

It's an underlying principle of EVERYONE's fighting style, except the ones who like to lose.

[login]

It's an underlying principle of EVERYONE's fighting style, except the ones who like to lose.

The anneversary of Dieppe is being commemorated by the Governor General, as part of his Olympics followup.

[WWWTT]

Hmm, spell checks don't like it. Neither do a couple of dictionaries. Yet you still insist it is a good word. How about a link to some dictionary?

Perhaps you meant "expedite"?

I went online and checked it and it is OK.Yes it is another version of expedite but still OK.

If you don't like it,go complain to someone who cares!

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

I went online and checked it and it is OK.Yes it is another version of expedite but still OK.

If you don't like it,go complain to someone who cares!

WWWTT

I would appreciate a link.

[Topaz]

Today's reports say Israel is testing its SMS which tells the people when someone sending in a missile and to take cover. Can you imagine living your life like that? It reeminds what people in Europe went through in WW2 but todays weapons are a lot more powerful. It seems Iran, Egypt, Syria are all out to get Israel and if they do the US will be in there and then Canada will too because Harper won't say no. It seems to me that Harper views on war is "let go" attitude. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israel-tests-sms-missile-alerts-iran-chatter-grows-193355859.html

[login]

Today's reports say Israel is testing its SMS which tells the people when someone sending in a missile and to take cover. Can you imagine living your life like that? It reeminds what people in Europe went through in WW2 but todays weapons are a lot more powerful. It seems Iran, Egypt, Syria are all out to get Israel and if they do the US will be in there and then Canada will too because Harper won't say no. It seems to me that Harper views on war is "let go" attitude. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israel-tests-sms-missile-alerts-iran-chatter-grows-193355859.html

There are automated warning systems in many places. Even the federal government has an arrangement with the weather network operators for their warning system with private media to get the messageout.

SMS warnings are not new. The techinology exists to even activate phones that arn't on but have power to them. With new phone techs you don't even need to have power as the phones have rectennas built into them so in addition to being able to eaves drop they can also be turned on remotely to deliver a message or ring etc.. even without battery power.

Canada has had an emergency activation system for sometime, althoughthe landline phone service has been reserved for grandfathered persons, they do have an SMS service and cell notification service too.

Workplaces and institutions have these systems for their distributed communications system also rolled out in Canada.

Not sure if you know what EMS emergency messaging system is a radio protocol that can turn on radios remotely with the tech based upon a radio signal that trips them on.

The tech used by Israel is actually very rudimentary as far as I can tell.

It is also succeptable to terrorist signal jamming.

They would be better off setting up non vibrational sound alerts through distributed communications towers,but its not worth the cost. SMS is an easy warning system but it doesn't warn everyone. Cells can also be used for tracking so it is a security risk.

Example a psychotronic pulse wave alert signal the public is told signafies immediate danger, then they just pulse that frequnecy that is deteected is one way. Just relying on SMS is a little weak for proactive warning.

Edited August 13, 2012 by login

[Argus]

The anneversary of Dieppe is being commemorated by the Governor General, as part of his Olympics followup.

Not sure I get the relevance unless you're agreeing with me.

We attacked at Dieppe by surprise because we thought the raid would succeed. Turns out they were stronger and more alert than we thought, so we got our ass whipped.

[Moonbox]

The anneversary of Dieppe is being commemorated by the Governor General, as part of his Olympics followup.

Like he said, you attack in places of strength if you don't like winning. If you REALLY don't like winning, you attack a place of strength (fortified beach) from a position of weakness with (amphibious assault) with a tiny token force that had no chance to succeed in the first place. That was Dieppe.

Churchill himself stated in his memoirs that the raid was meant to appease Allied generals and to show Stalin that they were 'trying'. Allied command refused to even start planning the inevitable D-Day invasion until they knew how a modern amphibious assault would work, and lucky for Canada we got to be the guinea pigs.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Moonbox

[login]

Like he said, you attack in places of strength if you don't like winning. If you REALLY don't like winning, you attack a place of strength (fortified beach) from a position of weakness with (amphibious assault) with a tiny token force that had no chance to succeed in the first place. That was Dieppe.

Churchill himself stated in his memoirs that the raid was meant to appease Allied generals and to show Stalin that they were 'trying'. Allied command refused to even start planning the inevitable D-Day invasion until they knew how a modern amphibious assault would work, and lucky for Canada we got to be the guinea pigs.

These are good points.

[Moonbox]

I'm not sure what's going on here. I was agreeing with Argus' point, but it seems like we're all agreeing now or something...