Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Adding that our "Allies" would have our backs adds apples to the orange pile and renders the whole bloody exercise pointless .. just like Russia helping them would change the dynamic .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Adding that our "Allies" would have our backs adds apples to the orange pile and renders the whole bloody exercise pointless .. just like Russia helping them would change the dynamic .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 The politics are complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 We could each spell out various scenarios where either side "may" dominate .. so it becomes moot .. 3.8 million troops versus 128,000, half of those being reserves .. technology would even it out some but if we learned anything from Iraq, it is that once you need to put people on the ground and in harms way, it changes the dynamic completely .. it is like fighting forest fires .. you can bomb fires infinitum, but you need boots-on-the-ground to put the fire out .. obvious scenario is that we would have to invade them, since we initiated this "action", and we would lose .. As far as dreams, where would a man be without his dreams .. it was my attempt to end my part of this pointless discussion .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Adding that our "Allies" would have our backs adds apples to the orange pile and renders the whole bloody exercise pointless .. just like Russia helping them would change the dynamic .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Moot point after moot point .. Russia DOES have a vested interest in Iran, if only as an irritant to the West .. I am not knowledgeable enough about either countries air power to comment .. I accept that we have superior air power, but the discrepancy between ground forces in an all-out conflagration is staggering .. when we run out of bombs we would be screwed .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm going to put it out there and say no one's going to attack Canada just because we closed our embassies. It's a futile discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 There really is no point in discussing Canada’s war capability apart from the US. Culturally, linguistically, economically, genetically (founding stock anyway) and militarily we are Americans. The fact that we have a quasi independent political entity is more a quirk of history and a matter of convenience than anything else. When push comes to shove in meaningful foreign policy matters we march in step with Tel Aviv on the Potomac. Here, Harper is being economical and apparently has decided to forego the farce of impartiality, something that Liberals would likely have entertained, before, of course, going along with it anyway. The powers that be are bent on war and experienced spokesmen for the regime, of all ostensible political stripes, know their duty. Pity Iran doesn’t actually have nukes. As Russia, China, and to lesser extent South Korea and Pakistan have shown, it is the only way of protecting yourself against the worst of the NWO buggery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Moot point after moot point .. Russia DOES have a vested interest in Iran, if only as an irritant to the West .. I am not knowledgeable enough about either countries air power to comment .. I accept that we have superior air power, but the discrepancy between ground forces in an all-out conflagration is staggering .. when we run out of bombs we would be screwed .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't know why you and others keep using the word 'moot' perjoratively to the act of raising an issue between the comparative capabilities between Iran's and Canada's militaristic 'winnability' in facing each other in a confrontation, since we have already acknowledged that this line of discussion is an abstract one, subject to discussion and question. There's no question that we aren't discussing something that has practical application or realization for us......hence once again, the reason it's a simple thought experiment, to discuss logical points and make comparisons, in order to attempt to come to some agreement or informed mutual understanding. Anyways, Russia does have an economic interest in Iran that it's vested in, but as I said, they have no obligation to Iran for its armed defence, such as NATO member countries have to the defence of any one of its own, should they be attacked. I'm glad that you acknowledge that Canada has 'air superiority' over Iran, just as I acknowledge that Iran has numerical troop superiority over Canada. The issue then, to settle, is what's vitally more important in a conflict between two formal militaries in a full combat situation? The air superiority or the ground superiority? Which of those two has the better ability to wipe the other out? And yes, it's a moot question....however it's one that seems to be in dispute between us, so it's one that's open to question and discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Do some people think Iran could invade Canada and win? They wouldn't even make it to the shore since they would all be sunk or shot down. As for Canada invading Iran in this purely imaginative scenario where no other forces get involved? It would depend on the objectives. If Canada wanted to capture hold and keep Iran lndefinately then we would sooner or later need to leave as the cost would be too high (Much like Vietnam and Afghanistan to the Russians. If Canada's objective was to destroy the enemy into a negotiated or unconditional surrender (Allies vs Japan), I think the chances are very good. Superior tactics, equipment and firepower along with Air and Sea superiority nullifies the advantage of numbers. It's not like the days of old where two armies meet on a field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Oh, but I so hate to fight with you .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Friends can have disagreements and discuss them without needing to 'fight'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Do some people think Iran could invade Canada and win? They wouldn't even make it to the shore since they would all be sunk or shot down. As for Canada invading Iran in this purely imaginative scenario where no other forces get involved? It would depend on the objectives. If Canada wanted to capture hold and keep Iran lndefinately then we would sooner or later need to leave as the cost would be too high (Much like Vietnam and Afghanistan to the Russians. If Canada's objective was to destroy the enemy into a negotiated or unconditional surrender (Allies vs Japan), I think the chances are very good. Superior tactics, equipment and firepower along with Air and Sea superiority nullifies the advantage of numbers. It's not like the days of old where two armies meet on a field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Friends can have disagreements and discuss them without needing to 'fight'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Even during 'the days of old' when battles were faught face to face numbers meant little. Just look up Hanibals huge victories over the Romans. Using ambush,strategic planning and deception. As well they were better equipped. Then you have the Macedonians under Alex the great and his Calvary charges, throwing larger armies into disarray before being slaughtered. There's A ton of ancient examples of smaller armies beating out larger armies all throughout history. Sparta anyone? I could go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Because he doesn't care about the cause our soldiers are there for. I keed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I agree, but this feels like one of those endless "circle-jerk" arguments .. there are scenarios in which both side could win .. thank the stars it should never happen .. I do admire the Iranian people for the most part .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well, you'd better finish what you started then, cause I paid good money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Ha ha ha .. too late laddie .. ask for a refund .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.