Would Canada be pulled into a war with Iran?

[Topaz]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran? I hope this can be settled peacefully, even if it take another 444 days! Who REALLY knows who telling the truth. Both Blair and Bush lied about 9/11 and Iran isn't all that trustworthy either. The people don't want a war in Iran any more than we do. If there is an invasion, it will be with the US and they will try to bomb anywhere were they think there's nuke power. I can see thousand of people getting killed and don't be surprised if China gets involved because they get oil from there. What a mess!!!

[Borg]

Relax - it will all come out in the wash.

Borg

[scribblet]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran? I hope this can be settled peacefully, even if it take another 444 days! Who REALLY knows who telling the truth. Both Blair and Bush lied about 9/11 and Iran isn't all that trustworthy either. The people don't want a war in Iran any more than we do. If there is an invasion, it will be with the US and they will try to bomb anywhere were they think there's nuke power. I can see thousand of people getting killed and don't be surprised if China gets involved because they get oil from there. What a mess!!!

We know who is telling the truth and its not Iran....Britain has released the data proving they were in Iraqi waters.

[Borg]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran? I hope this can be settled peacefully, even if it take another 444 days! Who REALLY knows who telling the truth. Both Blair and Bush lied about 9/11 and Iran isn't all that trustworthy either. The people don't want a war in Iran any more than we do. If there is an invasion, it will be with the US and they will try to bomb anywhere were they think there's nuke power. I can see thousand of people getting killed and don't be surprised if China gets involved because they get oil from there. What a mess!!!

We know who is telling the truth and its not Iran....Britain has released the data proving they were in Iraqi waters.

Now you have gone and done it.

You know very well you are going to get an argument from a whole bunch of people.

We all know the Brits are liars and the Iranians are right up there with truth and democratic justice.

Borg

[geoffrey]

No one ever wants a war. Sometimes though, it's neccessary to show some force.

With Iran, you'd hardly need an invasion. We should destabilize their government (cruise missile on Iran's government place during a sitting) and let this mysterious democratic youth uprising I hear so much from the left on happen.

If we wait until they have nukes, the price for destabilizing the country will be too great.

[scribblet]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran? I hope this can be settled peacefully, even if it take another 444 days! Who REALLY knows who telling the truth. Both Blair and Bush lied about 9/11 and Iran isn't all that trustworthy either. The people don't want a war in Iran any more than we do. If there is an invasion, it will be with the US and they will try to bomb anywhere were they think there's nuke power. I can see thousand of people getting killed and don't be surprised if China gets involved because they get oil from there. What a mess!!!

We know who is telling the truth and its not Iran....Britain has released the data proving they were in Iraqi waters.

Now you have gone and done it.

You know very well you are going to get an argument from a whole bunch of people.

We all know the Brits are liars and the Iranians are right up there with truth and democratic justice.

Borg

Dang, I forgot that the west is always wrong - ME always right now what?

[Cameron]

Iran....what a pain in the ass.

[weaponeer]

Iran is the world biggest terrorist supporter, perhaps it is about time they were dealt with. As for Canada in a war with Iran, not likely. We have nothing to contribute, and would only be in the way.

The US & UK have the required equip to deal with them. If the US decided to attack Iran, and I hope they do, it will be very quick. They will not INVADE & occupy, they will send in an airstrike the likes this world has never seen. UAV strikes, cruise missile strikes, stealth bombers, sub launched missiles, perhaps even a few conventional armed ICBMs from the Montana prairie.

Iran has to be dealt sooner or later. Should be sooner.....

[geoffrey]

That's overkill. Wipe out those ancient Islamic preachers running the show and your home free. I keep being told by many on this forum that the youth are waiting to rise against the theocracy and bring along a democracy.

Let's give 'em a little push.

[Canadian Blue]

That's overkill. Wipe out those ancient Islamic preachers running the show and your home free. I keep being told by many on this forum that the youth are waiting to rise against the theocracy and bring along a democracy.

Let's give 'em a little push.

By giving them a bomb?

[weaponeer]

That's overkill. Wipe out those ancient Islamic preachers running the show and your home free. I keep being told by many on this forum that the youth are waiting to rise against the theocracy and bring along a democracy.

Let's give 'em a little push.

I agree, but you have to take out the nukes...

[geoffrey]

By giving them a bomb?

No, by forcing the collective western hand in some regime change. If you take out those Supreme leader types, those youth dying to take over the country will rise up. At least, that's the theory.

We only have a chance now. Once they have nuclear weapons, there is nothing we can do.

I agree, but you have to take out the nukes...

There is no nukes, yet.

[Adelle]

The "kill them all and let god sort them out" solution is a little simplistic. Ok, a lot simplistic. The problem with intervention is that what ever happens afterward is YOUR fault even when people have been dieing by violence for generations before. NATO and UN in Afghanistan, US and UK in Iraq, African Union in Sudan, Ethiopia in Somalia, etc. Even supporting an opposition movement makes YOU responsible for the consequences (see CIA meddling in national affairs). Many want the EU and US to aid in the intervention in Sudan but how long would that last once people started dieing at OUR hands. Canada supported the effort of African forces by giving them our old AFV’s when we went to the new 8-wheel model you see in the news. Those weren’t perfect but they are better than the Toyota pickups the Africans were using. Maybe that is the answer, provide logistical and material support and let some else do the dieing and killing. No embarrassing body bags or news reports that way.

As for Canada being involved in Iran, it is my understanding that our military it taxed to the max in Afghanistan. We are having a real effect there but people keep confusing it with what is going on in Iraq and question our efforts every time someone gets hurt or killed. Afghanistan is a sanctioned UN mission while Iraq is a unilateral intervention on the part of US/UK forces.

[moderateamericain]

Ok, a lot simplistic. The problem with intervention is that what ever happens afterward is YOUR fault even when people have been dieing by violence for generations before. NATO and UN in Afghanistan, US and UK in Iraq, African Union in Sudan, Ethiopia in Somalia, etc. Even supporting an opposition movement makes YOU responsible for the consequences (see CIA meddling in national affairs). Many want the EU and US to aid in the intervention in Sudan but how long would that last once people started dieing at OUR hands. Canada supported the effort of African forces by giving them our old AFV’s when we went to the new 8-wheel model you see in the news. Those weren’t perfect but they are better than the Toyota pickups the Africans were using. Maybe that is the answer, provide logistical and material support and let some else do the dieing and killing. No embarrassing body bags or news reports that way.

As for Canada being involved in Iran, it is my understanding that our military it taxed to the max in Afghanistan. We are having a real effect there but people keep confusing it with what is going on in Iraq and question our efforts every time someone gets hurt or killed. Afghanistan is a sanctioned UN mission while Iraq is a unilateral intervention on the part of US/UK forces.

I think the Canadian Military should just stick to Afghanistan. You guys are doing a fine job there and keeping the flight lines open for the Injured coming out.

[M.Dancer]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran?

Have to?

No...we didn't have to decalre war on Germany....we didn't send aid during the Falklands war.....that being said, we as allies should aid them as is appropriate.

[madmax]

I agree, but you have to take out the nukes...

They have no nukes, yet. But who has gave them non civilian nuclear technology?

Pakistan.

They promote terrorism, fundementalism, dictatorship, and the spread of Nuclear technology to rogue nations.

Irans, latest flexing of muscle is directly related to the incompetent actions of GWB in Iraq.

[Figleaf]

We know who is telling the truth and its not Iran....Britain has released the data proving they were in Iraqi waters.

The problem is, that the chain of credibility on these sorts of statements is totally unclear. Let me explain...

Scenario:

scriblett (S) says "Z" ...

scriblett read it on website A ...

website A got it from news syndicate F ...

news syndicate F employed reporter Q ...

reporter Q attended military briefing W ...

military briefing W released data printout N ...

printout N was prepared by V who was told by GPS operator Smith that that was his reading.

Now we know from how Bush/Blair started the Iraq conflict that A, F, and Q are incompetent, co-opted, and useless. We also know that W, N, and V could readily employ dissinformation if they think they should. And Smith? Well he's 22 years old and been in the job for 6 weeks. His XO helped him take the reading, but they're not mentioning that.

Now please note, I'm not saying I believe Iran and disbelieve Britain. I'm saying that we have no way of finding a reasonable certainty on who to believe. The certainty some of you express is, it must be acknowledged, an emotive and non-evidential type of certainty.

[stignasty]

/me pulls out his "Nuke Iran" t-shirt.

Men's small!?!?

Nevermind.

[Canadian Blue]

Even if we kill the leaders would that help bring about democracy in Iran. I highly doubt it, and I think a different tyrant will come in.

[Topaz]

IF Britain decides to attack, would the other Commonwealth nations have to go to their defense against Iran?

Have to?

No...we didn't have to decalre war on Germany....we didn't send aid during the Falklands war.....that being said, we as allies should aid them as is appropriate.

Since I have asked this question our PM has said Canada will be there if needed. Is he joining up to go over?? Can he shoot a gun? He'd probably want to ride in a jet instead. It's like playing with a computer game and he must have played with lots of those!

[Argus]

Even if we kill the leaders would that help bring about democracy in Iran. I highly doubt it, and I think a different tyrant will come in.

I think an attack on Iran will actually help the old men. I'm hardly an expert on the middle east, but the mentality over there seems to be that no matter how much they hate each other they will hate anyone else more if they offer up violence towards one of "theirs". An all out air attack will re-energise anti-Western feelings, radicalize more people, and create an indignant, furious groundswell of support for the regime and against the West. It might not make sense but then, when do people in that region ever make sense?

Nevertheless, I think it's time Iran got it's hands slapped. I do not want this collection of radical religious wackos with nukes in their hands, and I think taking out their air and sea assets, missile technology, and anything remotely connected to their nuclear efforts is something that is justifiable and doable. If Iran doesn't learn from that it might be necessary to impose some kind of military blockade on them to prevent oil shipments.

And yes, that means all the misery which results will be blamed on us, both by the Muslim world and by their fellow travelers here in the West and on this site. But I don't really care about that.

[Argus]

Now please note, I'm not saying I believe Iran and disbelieve Britain. I'm saying that we have no way of finding a reasonable certainty on who to believe. The certainty some of you express is, it must be acknowledged, an emotive and non-evidential type of certainty.

I really don't consider it of any importance whether the Brits were on their side, or whether they strayed a little across the imaginary line. In neither event is Iran's behaviour remotely justifiable. This is just another indication of what a rogue nation they are.

[Figleaf]

Now please note, I'm not saying I believe Iran and disbelieve Britain. I'm saying that we have no way of finding a reasonable certainty on who to believe. The certainty some of you express is, it must be acknowledged, an emotive and non-evidential type of certainty.

I really don't consider it of any importance whether the Brits were on their side, or whether they strayed a little across the imaginary line. In neither event is Iran's behaviour remotely justifiable.

Whatever private definition of 'justifiable' you are using to bolster your POV doesn't change the fact that in international law a state is perfectly entitled to detain foreign military forces caught conducting agressive actions within its sovereign territory or waters.

Dass da fax.

[weaponeer]

As I stated before all Canada could contribute is moral support. Our army is stretched with Afghanistan, although it is slowly getting healtier, our air force is ill equipped to conduct airstrikes into Irainian IADS, and our navy has no land attack capability.

The USA is the only country that can handle Iran, with some help from Britian if it wanted. The American Army is heavily tied down in Iraq & Afghanistan, however US Air Force and US Navy combat units are not heavily tasked at all. If the US launched an all out airstrike, they could reduce the nuke threat from Iran to zero, and reduce the Iraininan military to an "also ran".

[Adelle]

I think that Britain could still seriously mess with Iran if it had to, even without the US. The last time this happened they had the entire Empire to draw upon, particularly India, but they were also fighting a World War at the time so it kind of evens out. Then they used the equivalent of two divisions to do the job but that was also a different time. Of course, the Soviets came in from the north with two ARMIES. The Shah abdicated and his son was put in charge and we know how that went.

Anyway, if they got a Div from ANZAC (does that exist now?) and one from India again and say two from the UK and maybe some logistical support (Supply, Medical, Communications, etc) from Canada (do we even have a div?) I think they could win the war but would have to get out before it went the way of Iraq. Of course, I doubt if the other Arab nations would be sending hugs and kisses through all of this. There is more to war, in the 21st century, than just the fighting. I mean look at the things happening now because of events a hundred years back. We could end up with another Arab League or Union of Arab States and you think we have problems now? Fortunately (sic), at the moment, if these folks aren’t busy killing us they are busy killing each other but it could happen if there were a catalyst and a real leader with more on his mind than using airliners as missiles. Just a thought.