1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
Thanks Franko...this thread was "learnin'" me lots of stuff I had no insight on. Just went off the boundaries of the trace.
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
Zipper,
Are you in the CF now? I would be interested in hearing what you and other members of the CF think about the possibility of a war with Iran. From what I've read in prior posts on this topic, it seems that many think that a war with Iran would not pose too much a problem other than the occasional terrorist attack domestically, a few torpedos, and maybe a period of guerrilla resistance.
But from the civilian's point of view, a terrorist attack on domestic soil is rather frightening. If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran. If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper.
That being said, if Iran attacked with a WMD, we'd rally behind the CF in an all-out declaration of war. Hell, I'd even say bring on the draft in that case. I'd go.
Are you in the CF now? I would be interested in hearing what you and other members of the CF think about the possibility of a war with Iran. From what I've read in prior posts on this topic, it seems that many think that a war with Iran would not pose too much a problem other than the occasional terrorist attack domestically, a few torpedos, and maybe a period of guerrilla resistance.
But from the civilian's point of view, a terrorist attack on domestic soil is rather frightening. If Iran proved it was capable of successfully detonating / releasing some sort of WMD on American or Canadian soil, I think the civilian population would be spilt as to whether or not to get into a tussle with Iran. If we knew that Iran could in theory kill millions of civilians, I suspect we'd be willing to leave Iran well enough alone, and be content to live with a cold-war scenario reminicent of the one we had with 'Ivan the Red Commie Dog' as you say, zipper.
That being said, if Iran attacked with a WMD, we'd rally behind the CF in an all-out declaration of war. Hell, I'd even say bring on the draft in that case. I'd go.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I disagree. I have more faith in our citizen's courage. I do not believe that Canadian citizens would ever bow down to bullies. We have never done so before, and I doubt that some Newfie fisherman, BC logger, Prairie farm boy, or Ontario city boy would tolerate ANYONE threatening, let alone attacking, their family.xenobard said:
When 911 happened, recruits flocked in. Canadians know what is Right, and will fight for it. And they will never bow to a tyrant, or capitulate to a terrorist.
We're a quiet people, but there is nothing more scary than a quiet man who finally loses his temper. And there is no way to stop a Good man who knows he is Right, and will not quit.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The thing is with Iran, Ahmadinjad, the president really has no real power on foreign or security policy, and in fact, the Iranian government and the ruling mulahs have actually moved to reduce the amount of power he wields because frankly, he has become a liability to the Iranian regime, as he is constantly shooting himself in the feet or putting his foot in the mouth. They did this by placing the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in a position overseeing him, as Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran. His fiery rhetoric is not endearing him to the leaders of Iran, indeed it is becoming more and more apparent he is little more than a minor player in Iran, who is seeking to establish a base of support to observers of Iranian politics.
To do a comparison between Iran and say, the United States, the opposite number of the American President in Iran is actually the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini has final say on all matters of security and foreign policy — including and especially the nuclear issue — although he typically abides by the consensus of the National Security Council. The Council is led by Ali Larijani, appointed by and answerable to the Supreme Leader, and a man who also ran for president against Ahmadinejad.
What is of note is that it is Larijani (who is seen as a moderate compared to Ahmadinejad) rather than Ahmadinejad who is managing the negotiations over the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has only one vote — out of around a dozen — on the Security Council. So as much as he rattles his metaphorical saber at the West, the President is in no position to act on any of this threats. He is in short, taking pot shots at the West with blanks; makes a whole lot of noise, but does zip. He has to lobby for his position within a power structure in which his is not the dominant voice. And while Ahmadinejad thunders against compromise, Larijani and other elements of the regime have made clear that Iran still seeks a deal, preferably in direct face-to-face talks with Washington.
Also important is that while Ahmadinejad has been rattling his saber against the West, the true leaders of Iran that acutally have any real power in Iran, namely, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has acutally issued a fatwa on August 9, 2005 declaring nuclear weapons to be forbidden under Islam, and as such, the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons are against Islam.
Right now, I am inclided to believe Iran in that they sincerely do not wish to seek nuclear weaponry and right now, the information from the IAEA inspections and reports back that position up. The analysis of the facts known indicate that there is no military nuclear activity, and no nuclear weapons program. Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire; right now we don't have any smoke, so therefore we don't have any fire. All I am inclined to do is to at least keep Iran under watch under the provisions of the NPT, and the issue is pretty much closed. If there is any real, solid evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and/or are developing them, then yes, do something about it. In short, I don't freaking care about what Ahmadinejad is spouting off; I am only interested in what Iran is actually doing. Actions speak louder than words.
To do a comparison between Iran and say, the United States, the opposite number of the American President in Iran is actually the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini has final say on all matters of security and foreign policy — including and especially the nuclear issue — although he typically abides by the consensus of the National Security Council. The Council is led by Ali Larijani, appointed by and answerable to the Supreme Leader, and a man who also ran for president against Ahmadinejad.
What is of note is that it is Larijani (who is seen as a moderate compared to Ahmadinejad) rather than Ahmadinejad who is managing the negotiations over the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has only one vote — out of around a dozen — on the Security Council. So as much as he rattles his metaphorical saber at the West, the President is in no position to act on any of this threats. He is in short, taking pot shots at the West with blanks; makes a whole lot of noise, but does zip. He has to lobby for his position within a power structure in which his is not the dominant voice. And while Ahmadinejad thunders against compromise, Larijani and other elements of the regime have made clear that Iran still seeks a deal, preferably in direct face-to-face talks with Washington.
Also important is that while Ahmadinejad has been rattling his saber against the West, the true leaders of Iran that acutally have any real power in Iran, namely, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has acutally issued a fatwa on August 9, 2005 declaring nuclear weapons to be forbidden under Islam, and as such, the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons are against Islam.
Right now, I am inclided to believe Iran in that they sincerely do not wish to seek nuclear weaponry and right now, the information from the IAEA inspections and reports back that position up. The analysis of the facts known indicate that there is no military nuclear activity, and no nuclear weapons program. Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire; right now we don't have any smoke, so therefore we don't have any fire. All I am inclined to do is to at least keep Iran under watch under the provisions of the NPT, and the issue is pretty much closed. If there is any real, solid evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and/or are developing them, then yes, do something about it. In short, I don't freaking care about what Ahmadinejad is spouting off; I am only interested in what Iran is actually doing. Actions speak louder than words.
Certainly many Canadians would be - and indeed now are - willing and ready to join the fight for what is right. Many others, on the otherhand, are still very quiet, at least for now. This quietness is multifaceted: in many cases it is a 'wait and see' quietness, in others it is an apathetic quietness, in others it is a temper-brooding quietness, in others it is a tentative quietness. We're Canadian, and so pride ourselves in not making decisions too quickly, we pride ourselves in what we don't say rather than what we say; and we take pride in our reserve. I agree that it is a sign of hidden strength, indeed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Xeno
I am on the supplementary reserve list for the Reserves. That is kind of like being on the bench in sports. I have put in my papers to go from supp Reserve to active Reserve [although, for how long it is taking, the process must be horribly difficult :
]
If a terrorist strike is going to happen in this country, it will happen. The terrorists are well established here, and it is a question of not "if" but "when". Fear of a strike is what the terrorists are hoping for (insert map of France: here
We must take the fight to them. Have you ever known anyone who had to spray for cockroaches? You can spray a room in a house, but the pesky buggers just go to another room and wait out. Same deal with terrorists. We have to go where they are, corner them, and exterminate them before they can do more damage. They of course have the option of joining the 20th century and avoiding all that burdensome high speed lead poisoning if they choose to.
I am on the supplementary reserve list for the Reserves. That is kind of like being on the bench in sports. I have put in my papers to go from supp Reserve to active Reserve [although, for how long it is taking, the process must be horribly difficult :
]If a terrorist strike is going to happen in this country, it will happen. The terrorists are well established here, and it is a question of not "if" but "when". Fear of a strike is what the terrorists are hoping for (insert map of France: here
We must take the fight to them. Have you ever known anyone who had to spray for cockroaches? You can spray a room in a house, but the pesky buggers just go to another room and wait out. Same deal with terrorists. We have to go where they are, corner them, and exterminate them before they can do more damage. They of course have the option of joining the 20th century and avoiding all that burdensome high speed lead poisoning if they choose to.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Things could be pretty unsettling if this NY Times story is reliable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/washington/07goss.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=9bad9826e017cfd2&ex=1147579200
Excerpts:
'...
But an array of former intelligence officials said the holes in American knowledge are numerous.
"Whenever the C.I.A. says 5 to 10 years, that means they don't know," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iran specialist in the clandestine service of the C.I.A. He said French and Israeli experts believe an Iranian bomb may be as little as one to three years off.
Flynt L. Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said American military planners clearly lack the detailed data needed to be able to cripple the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes should such a step be ordered.
"It's likely there are facilities we don't know about," Mr. Leverett said. "And if we knocked out the facilities we do know about, we wouldn't really know how much we'd set back their nuclear program."..'
This is especially disturbing--how did the Iranians learn it?
'The National Security Agency's efforts to intercept Iranian government communications were hampered in the last two years because Iran learned that the United States had broken its codes and changed them. Satellite photography has provided detailed images of suspected nuclear facilities, but such photographs leave many unanswered questions. Unmanned aerial vehicles are flown into Iran to sniff for gases that would provide clues to nuclear processing, former intelligence officials said.
But such technology cannot remedy Americans' ignorance of Persian language and Iranian culture, said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland, where some intelligence officers will begin immersion language classes this summer. Just 300 to 400 university students nationwide are studying Persian, he estimated, and most of those will drop out before becoming fluent...'
Mark
Ottawa
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/washington/07goss.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=9bad9826e017cfd2&ex=1147579200
Excerpts:
'...
But an array of former intelligence officials said the holes in American knowledge are numerous.
"Whenever the C.I.A. says 5 to 10 years, that means they don't know," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iran specialist in the clandestine service of the C.I.A. He said French and Israeli experts believe an Iranian bomb may be as little as one to three years off.
Flynt L. Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst now at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said American military planners clearly lack the detailed data needed to be able to cripple the Iranian nuclear program with air strikes should such a step be ordered.
"It's likely there are facilities we don't know about," Mr. Leverett said. "And if we knocked out the facilities we do know about, we wouldn't really know how much we'd set back their nuclear program."..'
This is especially disturbing--how did the Iranians learn it?
'The National Security Agency's efforts to intercept Iranian government communications were hampered in the last two years because Iran learned that the United States had broken its codes and changed them. Satellite photography has provided detailed images of suspected nuclear facilities, but such photographs leave many unanswered questions. Unmanned aerial vehicles are flown into Iran to sniff for gases that would provide clues to nuclear processing, former intelligence officials said.
But such technology cannot remedy Americans' ignorance of Persian language and Iranian culture, said Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland, where some intelligence officers will begin immersion language classes this summer. Just 300 to 400 university students nationwide are studying Persian, he estimated, and most of those will drop out before becoming fluent...'
Mark
Ottawa
I have to admi that I was quite surprised by the latest news headlines public opinion poll on our deployment in Afghanistan. According to
CTV news May 06,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/conservative_poll_060506/20060506?hub=TopStories
Excerpts:
"The poll, which was conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found 54 per cent of Canadians are against the deployment of troops. Of those, 23 per cent are strongly opposed -- an increase of eight percentage points from the previous survey."
"The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."
I don't think support is waning because we have lost faith in the mission. In fact, Canadians understand that what we are doing there is necessary and important. What I think we just have a lot of trouble with, however, is the casualties.
Just hoped you all knew that Canada DOES support what the CF is doing there, but is just now coming to grips with the realities of combat, I think. This poll can't really be considered an acurate indication of how Canadians really think.
What does this have to do with Iran? Well, it ties in to what I said in my previous post about how we'd be split on whether to get involved with Iran, again not because we are spineless, not because we aren't willing to stand up for what's right, but because we just care about our soldiers too much to see them getting hurt and all that.
CTV news May 06,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/conservative_poll_060506/20060506?hub=TopStories
Excerpts:
"The poll, which was conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, found 54 per cent of Canadians are against the deployment of troops. Of those, 23 per cent are strongly opposed -- an increase of eight percentage points from the previous survey."
"The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."
I don't think support is waning because we have lost faith in the mission. In fact, Canadians understand that what we are doing there is necessary and important. What I think we just have a lot of trouble with, however, is the casualties.
Just hoped you all knew that Canada DOES support what the CF is doing there, but is just now coming to grips with the realities of combat, I think. This poll can't really be considered an acurate indication of how Canadians really think.
What does this have to do with Iran? Well, it ties in to what I said in my previous post about how we'd be split on whether to get involved with Iran, again not because we are spineless, not because we aren't willing to stand up for what's right, but because we just care about our soldiers too much to see them getting hurt and all that.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
a great quote by a brilliant man.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Could it have been a cowboy who jumps outa airplanes?
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
To read the news articles one must conclude that the CIA is a bumbling inept organization and that the US due to the lack of intelligence cannot possibly take military action against Iran. If we want to lull the Iranian's into a false sense of security the news media is doing a great job of disinformation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
tomahawk6 said:
I am inclinded to say that there is no chance that the US can acutally shut down all of the nuclear sites by force unless the US goes in with ground troops. Air strikes won't cut it, some of the facilities are deeply burried and well fortified, which will more than easily take a normal bunker buster, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons are a public relations and ecological nightmare. Sure, we can probally bomb the enterance to these facilities with conventional weapons, but it will be only a matter of time before the Iranians manage to clear away the enterances and resume production. That if we know ALL of the facilities, it would be a shame to miss one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
CanuckTroop said:
At least Isreal has a 21 century mentality with matching technology, Iran and similar places are still thinking 13th century mentality, and with modern technology (nuclear wpns) that spells disaster, plus the fact that certain extremists within their governments (look what the political leader of Iran has recently publically stated about Israel for example), would love not only to use such weapons on the USA and Israel, but view the entire western world as enemies, including Canada (look what ratbags have been arrested there already), and would just as soon vapourise you just as much as The Great Satan south of the 49th.
Just who's side are you on anyway?
Theirs or a professional troller?
Your points are meaningless, and not well thought. I have read every post of yours in this thread, and its very one sided. I sniff a hidden agenda?
Wes
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Armymatters said:
After all the quotes you have given in other threads and the 'research' you have done, this post catches me by surprise. You really don't have any comprehension of the capabilities that the US and NATO Forces have available to them do you? I am sure that it would be a relatively simple matter these days to close down the entrances, and then keep closing them down as they are in the process of being reopened. Those capabilities have been demonstrated already in previous offensives. Today we also have Thermobaric munitions, which would preclude the use of nuclear weapons. I wouldn't overlook the possiblilities that lay out there, should the requirement arise for actions to be taken against a hostile Iran.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Armymatters, look up the concept of "economy of effort".
Does it make sense for the Coalition to attempt to locate and destroy hundreds or potentially thousands of potential sites associated with the dispersion and hardening of the nuclear weapons program, or would the same effect be achieved by decapitating a few hundred sites associated with the Ruling council and Revolutionary Guard? What about messing up the Iranian financial system? Would the technical staffs be very motivated without pay or the ability to buy groceries? (Or would the various French, Russian and Chinese companies eager to do business in Iran be so gung ho if they are no longer getting paid?). What about the power grid? Centrifuges require a lot of energy to run, and they are not powered by old Dodge Charger 440 Hemi engines. (This would also affect Iran's ability to pump and distribute oil as well, a big negative for their customers like China). What about beaming radio programs and delivering iPODs with pro democracy messages, uncensored news content and assurances of our love and support to the Iranian people?
Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.
Does it make sense for the Coalition to attempt to locate and destroy hundreds or potentially thousands of potential sites associated with the dispersion and hardening of the nuclear weapons program, or would the same effect be achieved by decapitating a few hundred sites associated with the Ruling council and Revolutionary Guard? What about messing up the Iranian financial system? Would the technical staffs be very motivated without pay or the ability to buy groceries? (Or would the various French, Russian and Chinese companies eager to do business in Iran be so gung ho if they are no longer getting paid?). What about the power grid? Centrifuges require a lot of energy to run, and they are not powered by old Dodge Charger 440 Hemi engines. (This would also affect Iran's ability to pump and distribute oil as well, a big negative for their customers like China). What about beaming radio programs and delivering iPODs with pro democracy messages, uncensored news content and assurances of our love and support to the Iranian people?
Think outside the box. The answer, when it comes, will surprise lots of people.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
a_majoor said:
So, deliver Ronald McDonald to them to be stoned in a courtyard, in order to satisfy Jihad?
No? Something else?
C
couchcommander
Guest
We'll have to wait until Strategic Council posts the full detailed report on their website I suppose.
Similar threads
