Why Is This A "Crisis"?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1860501/royal-navy-chiefs-iranian-spy-ship

Just sink the effing thing.

[Ken4155]

As per your link, sinking it is not an option.

[youngmafbog]

The French know how to get rid of undesirable boats :-)

[ToraToraTora]

They are saying they don't want to escalate, well that's what Iran is counting on, call their bluff. These terrorists play on our timidity, they would have no compunction if the roles were reversed.

[ToraToraTora]

Yep, give the job to the experts YMB I quite agree.

[davebro3]

could be Rishi's "GOTCHA" moment!

[ToraToraTora]

trouble is then Dave the news channels would be full of handwringing lefties!

[douglas9401]

Your super powers now include second sight then.

[ichkeria]

"They are saying they don't want to escalate, well that's what Iran is counting on, call their bluff. These terrorists play on our timidity, they would have no compunction if the roles were reversed."

Indeed. What's required is what Wes Clarke called the other day "overwhelming escalation" - the sort that causes the enemy to think: "ok we won't try that again." The US has the power to do it. And you may be sure that others such as Putin will be looking on to see if they have the will also. 

[Untitled]

erm "overwhelming escalation" didn't work out so well in 1914 did it. 

[Untitled]

"You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."

"But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?"

"Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan."

"What was that, sir?"

"It was bullocks"

edited slightly for err clarity ;) 

[Old_Geezer]

Tell them that you are tracking it and if it hasn't cleared off by some deadline, it will be fired at. (And mean it.) It's then in Iran's hands.

[ToraToraTora]

untitled: //erm "overwhelming escalation" didn't work out so well in 1914 did it. // that was not "overwhelming escalation" was it? As you contradict yourself in you post that follows. The sides were fairly equal. That's not the case here. The US could sink every Iranian ship from one aircraft carrier. ...and anyway WWI was started by Archie Juke, who shot an Ostrich because he was hungry.

[ToraToraTora]

11:14, yep that's not a bad shout OG.

[Khandro]

Sinking it is a no-no, think of the pollution alone. Better imobilise with super glue, a bucketfull down the funnel should do the trick. 😁 

[Peter Pedant]

because sinking is an act of war - for chrissakes....

and war with a nuclear nation is a crisis - gorblimey luv so it is!

[Peter Pedant]

untittlled - well one BA

the  war you er allude to  is the one that 54% of ABers ( I am not  saying if they are right or wrong - how  insulting) think was ended by the Battle of Waterloo in 1915 ?

[ichkeria]

"untitled: //erm "overwhelming escalation" didn't work out so well in 1914 did it. // that was not "overwhelming escalation" was it?"

Well perhaps Tora you  can explain what you think untitled meant by harking back presumably to the start of the Great War, because I am baffled 

[Old_Geezer]

Isn't coordinating missle attacks also an act of war - for chrissakes ?

 

If we don't count it as one, getting your spy ship fired at ought not be either.

[ToraToraTora]

13:37 I thought that was made pretty clear at 12:17. in 1918 the sides were more or less equal, any wally could see that war would not be over quickly. US v Iran is no contest in comparison.