Iran to use speedboats to attack the US 5th fleet?

[Simpo Two]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Simpo Two said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, Iran's surveillance reveals the presence of the US 5th fleet

you are saying they should attack?

What would you do?

I'd take the view that the opponent is about 1,000x more powerful and wind my neck in.

even at the point where they attack you?

surely Iran has as much right to have a defensive force as any other country

anyone using 'first strike' would be in the wrong

As I understand it neither country is officially at war with the other, so it's a question of risk assessment. In this case I can envisage a US first strike as self-defence, and similarly I can envisage an Iran first strike as a mad gesture to Allah/kill the Imperialist dogs etc.

As so often these days it is not all-out war but David v Goliath. The US could turn Iran into glass today if it so wished, but to date has not done so, whilst Iran enjoys poking the sleeping tiger for some reason best known to itself.

[6fire]

Use Psychology said:

if you can't hit a battleship there's not much hope for you really, is there?

RPG range is between 900-1000 metres. I wouldn't want to be that close to a hostile warship and even then, because the RPG doesn't fly in a straight line (especially in any sort of crosswind) you'd be lucky to hit the target.

RPG's score hits in massed attacks from close (and generally concealed) firing positions. But by far and away the majority of RPGs fired from more than a few hundred metres away simply miss the target.

[Mermaid]

Simpo Two said:

As I understand it neither country is officially at war with the other, so it's a question of risk assessment. In this case I can envisage a US first strike as self-defence,

As so often these days it is not all-out war but David v Goliath. The US could turn Iran into glass today if it so wished, but to date has not done so, whilst Iran enjoys poking the sleeping tiger for some reason best known to itself.

Since the US is so much more capable why not just ignore Iran? And there lies the chicken & egg for both.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Simpo Two said:

As I understand it neither country is officially at war with the other, so it's a question of risk assessment. In this case I can envisage a US first strike as self-defence, and similarly I can envisage an Iran first strike as a mad gesture to Allah/kill the Imperialist dogs etc.

you need to rethink where you get your opinions of the world
the whole country is not populated by madmen, despite what Fox News might have you believe

Simpo Two said:

As so often these days it is not all-out war but David v Goliath. The US could turn Iran into glass today if it so wished, but to date has not done so, whilst Iran enjoys poking the sleeping tiger for some reason best known to itself.

the US could launch a massive nuclear attack on any country, and they have a record of bombing other countries for their own political ends practically non-stop for the last 70 years

which is the dangerous country and the sleeping tiger again?

[Simpo Two]

Hugo; I presume you're either of Iranian extract or one of those peculiar Westerners who hates their own side and thinks everybody else is better. If so, you are free to leave.

I have never watched Fox News, but I have read a great deal of history.

[TheHeretic]

Simpo Two said:

Hugo; I presume you're either of Iranian extract or one of those peculiar Westerners who hates their own side and thinks everybody else is better. If so, you are free to leave.

I have never watched Fox News, but I have read a great deal of history.

So agree with you, or leave? Yay for freedom and democracy!

[Simpo Two]

TheHeretic said:

Simpo Two said:

Hugo; I presume you're either of Iranian extract or one of those peculiar Westerners who hates their own side and thinks everybody else is better. If so, you are free to leave.

I have never watched Fox News, but I have read a great deal of history.

So agree with you, or leave? Yay for freedom and democracy!

You're misinterpreting what I said. I mean that if you dislike the West, then why not vote with your feet and live somewhere you like better. Isn't that sensible?

ETA But this is not going to go anywhere; I am pro-American. Hugo is pro-Iranian. We'll leave it at that. But why is he in Germany?

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 20th August 19:21

[TheHeretic]

Simpo Two said:

You're misinterpreting what I said. I mean that if you dislike the West, then why not vote with your feet and live somewhere you like better. Isn't that sensible?

No... You assume that because he disagrees with you, he hates the west, therefore should leave. Daft viewpoint.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Simpo Two said:

Hugo is pro-Iranian. We'll leave it at that. But why is he in Germany?

No I'm not. An islamic theocracy? no thanks

but some people don't see the world in George Dubya style 'you're either with us or against us' black and white simplistic terms

the clear propaganda over the bullst 'wipe Israel from the map' comments shows the amount of anti-Iran brainwashing that's going on, combine that with all the double-dealing that's been going on for decades from the West in the middle east, playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq war for example, makes me doubt the motives of the 'nuke Tehran' campaigners in telling us all how dangerous Iran is

[Simon Bags]

Hugo a Gogo said:

why stop there, nuke every other country in the world (from orbit), just to be sure

What do you know, you're just a grunt.