Canada ready to take action on Iran if needed, Harper says

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


damn dude i couldnt agree more with you, im from the US and all but damn i couldnt agree more bro.

reply to post by Iwinder



Actually not just one. Paul Martin also told the US where to go when they invaded Iran for the second time.

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya

Canada ready to take action on Iran

Self-determination, transparent-democracy will be
dead if we continue to allow these power hungry psychopaths
to build a NWO empire.
Oh how I long for the good old days.,
This makes even the days of Jean Chrétien look good.

_______________________________

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by PuterMan
You missed a bit. If Iran comes clean and there are no plans they are still going to get attacked because the West we say "we don't believe you".

Not going to happen. The "west" only attacks those with a marginal military. Iran has a strong military:

www.globalfirepower.com...

As memory serves me, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a war that lasted eight years...and was a virtual draw. So, we can assume they were fairly evenly matched. How long exactly did it take American troops to get to Baghdad?

Using the link provided, let's have a quick peek at U.S. versus Iranian military strength.

Military Personnel...US 3.0 million...Iran 1.2 million (2.5 to 1)
Tanks...US 9,600...Iran 1,800 (5.3 to 1)
APC's...US 26,700...Iran 1,600 (16.7 to 1)
Logistical Vehicles...US 267,300...Iran 12,000 (13.9 to 1)
Aircraft...US 18,200...Iran 1,000 (18.2 to 1)
Helicopters....US 6,400...Iran 400 (16 to 1)
Ships....US 2,400...Iran 300 (8 to 1)
Aircraft Carriers....US 11...Iran 0
Destroyers...US 59...Iran 3 (19.7 to 1)
Frigates....US 30...Iran 5 (6 to 1)
Subs....US 75...Iran 19 (3.9 to 1)

The United States versus Iran in a shooting war would be like the Incredible Hulk versus a Wasp. Sure the Hulk might get stung once or twice - but the Wasp is going to get crushed.

The key numbers to look at are the mismatch between the Air Forces and the Navies. And the raw numbers only tell part of the tale. The American edge in technology likely doubles up their advantage again.

No contest.

Everyone star this post ^ That was an incredible delving into statistics, and he doesn't need a bad rep!

Good work getting the facts out. Good post.

How else would we know ... good job.

reply to post by mobiusmale

As memory serves me, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a war that lasted eight years...and was a virtual draw. So, we can assume they were fairly evenly matched. How long exactly did it take American troops to get to Baghdad?

I think Iran were fighting much more than just Iraq...

US support for Iraq during Iraq, Iran war

But don't think Iran will play fair in a fight with the US, They have missiles that can hit many oil fields in the Middle east as well as closing the straits of Hormuz.!!!

reply to post by mobiusmale


Your post on statistics is highly misleading, and obviously appeals to anyone without a real sense of strategy.

Do you honestly think that the US is going to send even the majority of its military to Iran? That would mean they would have to take forces from patrol missions and 700+ bases from all over the world, just to use them against Iran. This is rediculously absurd.

Secondly, pitting one nation's stats against another is only good for knowing stats. It DOES NOT determine outcome because it obviously doesn't take into account human, environmental, political, equipment reliability, etc etc factors.

Third, do you have any idea of how much it would cost for the US to send and field even a majority of its forces to Iran? Why do you think the US only had around 150,000 troops deployed at the peak of the Iraq invasion? Why do you think the CIA directed proxy armies to take down Gaddhafi? Because logistics are a serious virture.

Originally posted by AzureSky
I do not agree with this in the least.
As a Canadian, i refuse to let my country go to war again.
And i'll make damn sure everyone knows it too,

I will go door to door signing petitions to stop any action against iran. If i turn on the news and hear that, im going to lose my damn mind..

I think i have finally hit that point, where our government needs to listen to US. Why the hell can he make a decision to interfere with another country? Without the people's permission?

I do not think i am alone with these feelings, if we go to war with iran along with the united states, people are going to lose their cool, thousands and thousands will take to the streets.

If not millions. Iran has a right to power their country with whatever means they want to, just like any nation should be able to do. This holier than thou mentality of our globalist governments is getting to me, down to the core.

edit on 19/11/11 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)

I agree!

I have never been passionately political about anything but if Harper thinks he's going to assist the states in a war with Iran, I am going to be yelling from the rooftops. Other than just signing petitions, I recommend finding a way to throw this man out of office. We don't have the patriot act. Perhaps we as Canadian citizens can form a committee devoted to changing laws to allow for an immediate force de major of any prime minister. We must resist this madness!

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Beat me to it. You are quite right.

Secondly, check out the #'s for those countries that the US has been dealing with for almost a decade now. Iraq= #36, Afghanistan= #51 and one can think that they would easily roll over Iran who sits at #12? No logic there.

The logic is just fine.

The less capable nations who don't spawn good soldiers use 4 and 5GW tactics to diversify their warfare.

Originally posted by Aeons
The logic is just fine.

The less capable nations who don't spawn good soldiers use 4 and 5GW tactics to diversify their warfare.

edit on 2012/1/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Good soldiers are not created; they become apparent when they become necessary. If a war is not necessary, then what separates the good soldiers from the good murderers?

Mr Harper is NOT CANADA.
He is the prime minister elected by a majority of votes.

It's the Haper government who is ready to take action.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya

 

This news makes me angry

I am not surprised to hear it though.

Harper has always been a stooge for Israel.

He sure is getting a lot of applause.
I have high hopes for Canada. We can use all the help we can get.
I wonder how long the list will be? How many nations will stand with Israel?

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by PuterMan
You missed a bit. If Iran comes clean and there are no plans they are still going to get attacked because the West we say "we don't believe you".

Not going to happen. The "west" only attacks those with a marginal military. Iran has a strong military:

www.globalfirepower.com...

As memory serves me, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a war that lasted eight years...and was a virtual draw. So, we can assume they were fairly evenly matched. How long exactly did it take American troops to get to Baghdad?

Using the link provided, let's have a quick peek at U.S. versus Iranian military strength.

Military Personnel...US 3.0 million...Iran 1.2 million (2.5 to 1)
Tanks...US 9,600...Iran 1,800 (5.3 to 1)
APC's...US 26,700...Iran 1,600 (16.7 to 1)
Logistical Vehicles...US 267,300...Iran 12,000 (13.9 to 1)
Aircraft...US 18,200...Iran 1,000 (18.2 to 1)
Helicopters....US 6,400...Iran 400 (16 to 1)
Ships....US 2,400...Iran 300 (8 to 1)
Aircraft Carriers....US 11...Iran 0
Destroyers...US 59...Iran 3 (19.7 to 1)
Frigates....US 30...Iran 5 (6 to 1)
Subs....US 75...Iran 19 (3.9 to 1)

The United States versus Iran in a shooting war would be like the Incredible Hulk versus a Wasp. Sure the Hulk might get stung once or twice - but the Wasp is going to get crushed.

The key numbers to look at are the mismatch between the Air Forces and the Navies. And the raw numbers only tell part of the tale. The American edge in technology likely doubles up their advantage again.

No contest.

The USA AND its allies win the very short war with Iran easily.
Oil tankers will be sailing through the Strait of Hormuz no problem. The entire world
demands it.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Aeons
The logic is just fine.

The less capable nations who don't spawn good soldiers use 4 and 5GW tactics to diversify their warfare.

edit on 2012/1/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Good soldiers are not created; they become apparent when they become necessary. If a war is not necessary, then what separates the good soldiers from the good murderers?

I'm happy to have an answer for you. Capable political and military leadership.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by PuterMan
You missed a bit. If Iran comes clean and there are no plans they are still going to get attacked because the West we say "we don't believe you".

Not going to happen. The "west" only attacks those with a marginal military. Iran has a strong military:

www.globalfirepower.com...

As memory serves me, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a war that lasted eight years...and was a virtual draw. So, we can assume they were fairly evenly matched. How long exactly did it take American troops to get to Baghdad?

Using the link provided, let's have a quick peek at U.S. versus Iranian military strength.

Military Personnel...US 3.0 million...Iran 1.2 million (2.5 to 1)
Tanks...US 9,600...Iran 1,800 (5.3 to 1)
APC's...US 26,700...Iran 1,600 (16.7 to 1)
Logistical Vehicles...US 267,300...Iran 12,000 (13.9 to 1)
Aircraft...US 18,200...Iran 1,000 (18.2 to 1)
Helicopters....US 6,400...Iran 400 (16 to 1)
Ships....US 2,400...Iran 300 (8 to 1)
Aircraft Carriers....US 11...Iran 0
Destroyers...US 59...Iran 3 (19.7 to 1)
Frigates....US 30...Iran 5 (6 to 1)
Subs....US 75...Iran 19 (3.9 to 1)

The United States versus Iran in a shooting war would be like the Incredible Hulk versus a Wasp. Sure the Hulk might get stung once or twice - but the Wasp is going to get crushed.

The key numbers to look at are the mismatch between the Air Forces and the Navies. And the raw numbers only tell part of the tale. The American edge in technology likely doubles up their advantage again.

No contest.

The USA AND its allies win the very short war with Iran easily.
Oil tankers will be sailing through the Strait of Hormuz no problem. The entire world
demands it.

Comparing those numbers mean nothing. The US is going to send all of its forces to battle all of Iran's forces? That's not how the real world works. The logistics involved would cost enough to destroy the US economy, while taking forces from every other part of the world that the US patrols.

In a real conflict, the US would run into trouble starting with the initial bombing compaign simply because Iran, unlike Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq, has long range defensive capability AND anti-aircraft defense networks (unlike in Iraq, where US/UK bombed them for many months up until the 2003 invasion).

Iran would prioritize targets starting with naval ships and proximity bases, specifically airfields in Afghanistan. The Strait would be mined heavily (not many people here seem to realize that Iran has one of the largest stockpiles of naval mines in the world). Republican Guard units would engage in asymmetrical warfare, attacking vital logistical assets while collecting intel.

Iran would probably take a lot of damage from the initial bombardment, but it would hold its own against an invasion. The US and allies would never continuously push their forces into Iran if they are getting massacred. After a certain point, casualties and costs would mount up until western commanders deem the war isn't worth it anymore and back off. This result will be compounded by public opinion, recent historical facts (specifically Iraq), the initial destruction of high value Iranian targets, etc etc.

And Iran differs from Iraq in one other way: Saddam ruled Iraq for like three decades and murdered a lot of his people. He was considered a tyrant to be feared of by his own people. Iran is not ruled by murderous tyrants. The current government of Iran is decended directly from the revolution against American imperialism that backed a murderous tyrant. Anyone who thinks that Iranians will receive a western imperialist invasion with open arms must be retarded- such an act would only bolster the resolve of the current Iranian regime, and encourage nationalism for it.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


We will win the very short war with overwhelming firepower.

The list of nations aligning against Iran will be growing.
It appears Canada has been added to that list.

Iran will be losing its nuclear bomb program soon.

A simple regime change should solve the problem.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Are you serious? That is actually a serious question. If the US can't contain countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, what makes you think they can win against a viable opponent?

Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon....

They aren't "won" because they aren't real single nations. They are a collective of religious-economic interests being promoted with guerilla warfare, and spiritual-cultural warfare.

You can't win something like that with current political ideologies. What needs to be done to make the nonsense stop isn't politically correct.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by PuterMan
You missed a bit. If Iran comes clean and there are no plans they are still going to get attacked because the West we say "we don't believe you".

Not going to happen. The "west" only attacks those with a marginal military. Iran has a strong military:

www.globalfirepower.com...

As memory serves me, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a war that lasted eight years...and was a virtual draw. So, we can assume they were fairly evenly matched. How long exactly did it take American troops to get to Baghdad?

Using the link provided, let's have a quick peek at U.S. versus Iranian military strength.

Military Personnel...US 3.0 million...Iran 1.2 million (2.5 to 1)
Tanks...US 9,600...Iran 1,800 (5.3 to 1)
APC's...US 26,700...Iran 1,600 (16.7 to 1)
Logistical Vehicles...US 267,300...Iran 12,000 (13.9 to 1)
Aircraft...US 18,200...Iran 1,000 (18.2 to 1)
Helicopters....US 6,400...Iran 400 (16 to 1)
Ships....US 2,400...Iran 300 (8 to 1)
Aircraft Carriers....US 11...Iran 0
Destroyers...US 59...Iran 3 (19.7 to 1)
Frigates....US 30...Iran 5 (6 to 1)
Subs....US 75...Iran 19 (3.9 to 1)

The United States versus Iran in a shooting war would be like the Incredible Hulk versus a Wasp. Sure the Hulk might get stung once or twice - but the Wasp is going to get crushed.

The key numbers to look at are the mismatch between the Air Forces and the Navies. And the raw numbers only tell part of the tale. The American edge in technology likely doubles up their advantage again.

No contest.

The USA AND its allies win the very short war with Iran easily.
Oil tankers will be sailing through the Strait of Hormuz no problem. The entire world
demands it.

Comparing those numbers mean nothing. The US is going to send all of its forces to battle all of Iran's forces? That's not how the real world works. The logistics involved would cost enough to destroy the US economy, while taking forces from every other part of the world that the US patrols.

In a real conflict, the US would run into trouble starting with the initial bombing compaign simply because Iran, unlike Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq, has long range defensive capability AND anti-aircraft defense networks (unlike in Iraq, where US/UK bombed them for many months up until the 2003 invasion).

Iran would prioritize targets starting with naval ships and proximity bases, specifically airfields in Afghanistan. The Strait would be mined heavily (not many people here seem to realize that Iran has one of the largest stockpiles of naval mines in the world). Republican Guard units would engage in asymmetrical warfare, attacking vital logistical assets while collecting intel.

Iran would probably take a lot of damage from the initial bombardment, but it would hold its own against an invasion. The US and allies would never continuously push their forces into Iran if they are getting massacred. After a certain point, casualties and costs would mount up until western commanders deem the war isn't worth it anymore and back off. This result will be compounded by public opinion, recent historical facts (specifically Iraq), the initial destruction of high value Iranian targets, etc etc.

And Iran differs from Iraq in one other way: Saddam ruled Iraq for like three decades and murdered a lot of his people. He was considered a tyrant to be feared of by his own people. Iran is not ruled by murderous tyrants. The current government of Iran is decended directly from the revolution against American imperialism that backed a murderous tyrant. Anyone who thinks that Iranians will receive a western imperialist invasion with open arms must be retarded- such an act would only bolster the resolve of the current Iranian regime, and encourage nationalism for it.

edit on 7-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

You are correct those numebers do not mean everything. They do not reveal that the regular armed forces of Iran are poorly trained, poorly supplied and poorly armed. They are this way because they are not trusted. The Revolutionary Guard are the trusted and chosen well paid, trained and armed. The RG will be mostly used to keep the regular forces from attemting regime change. And Irans air defences would be impressive 20 years ago but, now they are not and the US is well skilled in dealing with them. As for mining the gulf they have tried to do so in the past and the lead to a massive focus on mine sweaping warfare in the west not to mention other navies in the region.