Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Halifax Tar]

Sure. Why though?

We've spent enough blood and treasure on them. I personally don't see much value in further sacrifice for them.

Having said the above I don't make these decisions either.

I'm a chauvinistic fortress NA kind of guy.

 

[OldSolduer]

I wasn't opining as to whether the Americans would need or want our help, rather it was a retort to the implication that nothing Canada has could be of value to the Americans in this contest.

Here's my thoughts for what they are worth:

I find American soldiers - officers and NCOs - to be very undiplomatic and "my way or the highway". That doesn't sell well diplomatically.
I think there are still a few around who were in Bosnia and the years the CAF spent in "peacekeeping ops" paid off well with potentially hostile people.
Peacekeeping did have some benefits and one of them was most of our soldiers were somewhat diplomatic in hostile situations. Even in Afghanistan. And if you want I can give you one example.

But my thoughts won't even get you a coffee at Timmies.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Here's my thoughts for what they are worth:

I find American soldiers - officers and NCOs - to be very undiplomatic and "my way or the highway". That doesn't sell well diplomatically.
I think there are still a few around who were in Bosnia and the years the CAF spent in "peacekeeping ops" paid off well with potentially hostile people.
Peacekeeping did have some benefits and one of them was most of our soldiers were somewhat diplomatic in hostile situations. Even in Afghanistan.

But my thoughts won't even get you a coffee at Timmies.

I loved, and still do love, working with Americans. I find them to be helpful and hard workers.

Person for person perhaps not as smart, but all heart and effort. I'll take that.

I'd work with them again anytime.

Lol yours is worth the coffee mine is worth the farmers wrap lol

 

[KevinB]

Iran had to be dealt with and its been coming 40 years. Some are just upset about who is doing it.

Keep in mind after Sept 11 2001, the USG was freaked out about authoritarian regimes having access to WMD’s after what AlQ did with domestic aircraft.

Three countries at that time were in the spot light. Iran, North Korea and Iraq. Iraq was determined to be the ‘easiest/safest option’ in the opinion as there was a UN resolution to allow for force as Iraq was not adhering to the mandate inspections. North Korea and Iran were also seen as two having the highest number of US casualties due to the fanaticism of the population. So Iran who was #1 on the shit list for state sponsored terrorism got a pass. All that did is push NK and Iran to try to acquire nuclear weapons faster as they saw what occurred to Iraq when the US Military came to call.

Hindsight being 20/20, if you took Iran out in 2003, it would have been fairly isolating to Iraq. Afghanistan’s western border wouldn’t have been as porous as well. Iraq would have been trapped between KSA and a new Iran. Lebanon would likely be more stable and Israeli not being a a target by Iranian state, the Gulf of Oman and Straights of Hormuz also clear.

Of course that would have meant thinking further out than one’s headlights in the off position…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Keep in mind after Sept 11 2001, the USG was freaked out about authoritarian regimes having access to WMD’s after what AlQ did with domestic aircraft.

Three countries at that time were in the spot light. Iran, North Korea and Iraq. Iraq was determined to be the ‘easiest/safest option’ in the opinion as there was a UN resolution to allow for force as Iraq was not adhering to the mandate inspections. North Korea and Iran were also seen as two having the highest number of US casualties due to the fanaticism of the population. So Iran who was #1 on the shit list for state sponsored terrorism got a pass. All that did is push NK and Iran to try to acquire nuclear weapons faster as they saw what occurred to Iraq when the US Military came to call.

Hindsight being 20/20, if you took Iran out in 2003, it would have been fairly isolating to Iraq. Afghanistan’s western border wouldn’t have been as porous as well. Iraq would have been trapped between KSA and a new Iran. Lebanon would likely be more stable and Israeli not being a a target by Iranian state, the Gulf of Oman and Straights of Hormuz also clear.

Of course that would have meant thinking further out than one’s headlights in the off position…

Sure. I think the issue here is this medicine would taste better to some if it had been administered by Biden or Obama.

 

[Remius]

We've spent enough blood and treasure on them. I personally don't see much value in further sacrifice for them.

Having said the above I don't make these decisions either.

I'm a chauvinistic fortress NA kind of guy.

I’d wager we’ve spent quite a bit in the ME. Ok to sacrifice there? Not sure how that squares with fortress NA.

The US doesn’t seem keen on fortress NA either unless it means completely bending the knee.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sure. I think the issue here is this medicine would taste better to some if it had been administered by Biden or Obama.

To some, yup. To die-hard American haters, they'd still have been unhappy. Remember, it wasn't a lot of Republicans who complained about Obama's drone program while it was under way.

 

[OldSolduer]

I loved, and still do love, working with Americans. I find them to be helpful and hard workers.

Person for person perhaps not as smart, but all heart and effort. I'll take that.

I'd work with them again anytime.

Lol yours is worth the coffee mine is worth the farmers wrap lol

Don't get me wrong - they are good in their lane. I have never seen anyone else move troops from Point A to B as quickly as they can.

They are good - to a point. Don't ask them to chair a meeting between nationalities. We do that far better.

 

[ytz]

What if the US Doesn't care about anything but winning the battle?

They don't get the choice. If Iran becomes Iraq 2.0, is everybody just going to ignore all the threats emanating from there and simply absorb the hits here?

Iraq was determined to be the ‘easiest/safest option’ in the opinion as there was a UN resolution to allow for force as Iraq was not adhering to the mandate inspections. North Korea and Iran were also seen as two having the highest number of US casualties due to the fanaticism of the population. So Iran who was #1 on the shit list for state sponsored terrorism got a pass. All that did is push NK and Iran to try to acquire nuclear weapons faster as they saw what occurred to Iraq when the US Military came to call.

Yep. They talked themselves into believing that the easiest target was the best one and ignore the most dangerous target. But there was also an incredible amount of both cultural ignorance and hubris. These guys jump into millennia old cultures and think they can simply sort it out overnight with a can do attitude. Then are shocked when it turns out governance and power don't work the same way in different cultures. Similar Pikachu look right now that Iranians aren't just mass protesting....

I’d wager we’ve spent quite a bit in the ME. Ok to sacrifice there? Not sure how that squares with fortress NA.

The US doesn’t seem keen on fortress NA either unless it means completely bending the knee.

Their refocus on the Western Hemisphere is going really well. LOL.

 

[McG]

THIS is what should have happened with the Dena.

https://www.news18.com/world/sri-lanka-to-take-control-of-iranian-ship-iris-bushehr-after-us-torpedoed-iris-dena-ws-l-9944861.html

If a ship wants to surrender itself to a neutral nation, I suppose that is up to the ship's captain. What would be the RCN policy on giving away a Canadian Frigate for fear of being engaged in combat?

The earlier noise in this thread, that a warship should be treated as hors de combat because it happens to be far away home ports, is absurd and not required by LOAC. Neither the Battle of the Falkland Islands nor the Battle of the River Plate would have happened if some special maritime LOAC confined war to agreed upon sandboxes. A combatant is a combatant, and is liable to be engaged by an enemy combatant.

I suppose there is room to argue the legality of the whole US operation against Iran, but lets stop pretending the lives of military sailors are more precious than infantry who don't get the bat of an eye when killed in triple digit quantities.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Keep in mind after Sept 11 2001, the USG was freaked out about authoritarian regimes having access to WMD’s after what AlQ did with domestic aircraft.

Three countries at that time were in the spot light. Iran, North Korea and Iraq. Iraq was determined to be the ‘easiest/safest option’ in the opinion as there was a UN resolution to allow for force as Iraq was not adhering to the mandate inspections. North Korea and Iran were also seen as two having the highest number of US casualties due to the fanaticism of the population. So Iran who was #1 on the shit list for state sponsored terrorism got a pass. All that did is push NK and Iran to try to acquire nuclear weapons faster as they saw what occurred to Iraq when the US Military came to call.

Hindsight being 20/20, if you took Iran out in 2003, it would have been fairly isolating to Iraq. Afghanistan’s western border wouldn’t have been as porous as well. Iraq would have been trapped between KSA and a new Iran. Lebanon would likely be more stable and Israeli not being a a target by Iranian state, the Gulf of Oman and Straights of Hormuz also clear.

Of course that would have meant thinking further out than one’s headlights in the off position…

ALL of that assumes that a replacement government system could have been 'lifted and shifted' directly into Iran - with none of the issues that occurred in Iraq during a decades time of learning of what 'worked', what 'didn't work', what 'kind of worked' and finally what 'worked enough for us to live with it.'

Otherwise you would have just have a 92million person problem instead of the 25million person problem that was Iraq.

 

[Jarnhamar]

From your perspective, how should he have answered this question?

Personally I think he should have just left it at never ruling out participation. That was a strong clear statement. It's nice to see the PM willing to be blunt.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If a ship wants to surrender itself to a neutral nation, I suppose that is up to the ship's captain. What would be the RCN policy on giving away a Canadian Frigate for fear of being engaged in combat?

The earlier noise in this thread, that a warship should be treated as hors de combat because it happens to be far away home ports, is absurd and not required by LOAC. Neither the Battle of the Falkland Islands nor the Battle of the River Plate would have happened if some special maritime LOAC confined war to agreed upon sandboxes. A combatant is a combatant, and is liable to be engaged by an enemy combatant.

I suppose there is room to argue the legality of the whole US operation against Iran, but lets stop pretending the lives of military sailors are more precious than infantry who don't get the bat of an eye when killed in triple digit quantities.

There is a difference between fear of being engaged in combat and recognizing that any sort of resistance is a immediate and pointless death sentence. Pointless suicide missions for the sake of suicide missions don’t win wars, or even help your cause.

Giving up the ship gives them the ability to potentially fight on later and actually have a positive effect if that is the path they choose to take.

Not to mention many on board are conscripts not volunteers, they never chose that life or risk they were forced into it. It is more honourable to protect those lives than it is to die for nothing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

THIS is what should have happened with the Dena.

https://www.news18.com/world/sri-lanka-to-take-control-of-iranian-ship-iris-bushehr-after-us-torpedoed-iris-dena-ws-l-9944861.html

Happened several times in WWI and II

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If a ship wants to surrender itself to a neutral nation, I suppose that is up to the ship's captain. What would be the RCN policy on giving away a Canadian Frigate for fear of being engaged in combat?

The earlier noise in this thread, that a warship should be treated as hors de combat because it happens to be far away home ports, is absurd and not required by LOAC. Neither the Battle of the Falkland Islands nor the Battle of the River Plate would have happened if some special maritime LOAC confined war to agreed upon sandboxes. A combatant is a combatant, and is liable to be engaged by an enemy combatant.

I suppose there is room to argue the legality of the whole US operation against Iran, but lets stop pretending the lives of military sailors are more precious than infantry who don't get the bat of an eye when killed in triple digit quantities.

As I recall the UK did declare a certain area of the South Atlantic a combat zone prior to the sinking of the Belgrano?

 

[McG]

There is a difference between fear of being engaged in combat and recognizing that any sort of resistance is a immediate and pointless death sentence. Pointless suicide missions for the sake of suicide missions don’t win wars, or even help your cause.

So? I acknowledged surrendering the warship was an option open to the captain. That doesn't change the circumstances of the first ship which had not surrendered to anyone at the time it was sent to the bottom. LOAC does not require an invitation to surrender prior to the application of lethal force.

Not to mention many on board are conscripts not volunteers, they never chose that life or risk they were forced into it.

Many people killed or about to be killed on land will have also been forced into their circumstances too. Sailors are not more precious under LOAC. Let's stop pretending the torpedoed frigate deserved something more under law or custom.

As I recall the UK did declare a certain area of the South Atlantic a combat zone prior to the sinking of the Belgrano?

That was something the UK chose to do, and it was probably a construct chosen primarily to protect their own maritime interests around the world. But it was not a LOAC requirement, and in the end they did not constrain themselves by it.

Happened several times in WWI and II

Invitation to surrender was courtesy sometimes afforded to merchant shipping. But opposing combatants typically greeted each other with cannon fire.

 

[RangerRay]

As I recall the UK did declare a certain area of the South Atlantic a combat zone prior to the sinking of the Belgrano?

IIRC the Belgrano was outside that area by a little bit, but the RN still saw it as a threat since it was close to their fleet.

 

[Halifax Tar]

IIRC the Belgrano was outside that area by a little bit, but the RN still saw it as a threat since it was close to their fleet.

What's your definition of a little bit ?

Google says:

It was 30 to 40 nautical miles outside the 200-nautical-mile Total Exclusion Zone (TEZ) declared by the UK. And sailing away from the TEZ.

 

[Eaglelord17]

So? I acknowledged surrendering the warship was an option open to the captain. That doesn't change the circumstances of the first ship which had not surrendered to anyone at the time it was sent to the bottom. LOAC does not require an invitation to surrender prior to the application of lethal force.


Many people killed or about to be killed on land will have also been forced into their circumstances too. Sailors are not more precious under LOAC. Let's stop pretending the torpedoed frigate deserved something more under law or custom.


That was something the UK chose to do, and it was probably a construct chosen primarily to protect their own maritime interests around the world. But it was not a LOAC requirement, and in the end they did not constrain themselves by it.


Invitation to surrender was courtesy sometimes afforded to merchant shipping. But opposing combatants typically greeted each other with cannon fire.

Just because it doesn’t require a invitation to surrender doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be offered.

Same thing for soldiers on land, surrender or die is not a requirement but it is a honourable thing to offer.

At this point considering the US and Israel are already violating international law (attacking a sovereign nation without provocation), why should they care about the LOAC? Whats another made up law in their might equals right world? Gods on their side you know, Hegseth said so.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

THIS is what should have happened with the Dena.

https://www.news18.com/world/sri-lanka-to-take-control-of-iranian-ship-iris-bushehr-after-us-torpedoed-iris-dena-ws-l-9944861.html

Sri Lanka has a 12nm territorial waters, but the sinking was well within their EEZ . This is a 40nm radius from Galle, so she was sunk somewhere in that area. Hard to tell with open source what her intentions where. Whether to attack Diego Garcia or to head home? According to Wiki, the class can carry 4x Noor Anti-ship missiles with a range up to 200km.