US and UK carry out airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen

[Twilight Hue]

Well, obliterating the enemy did work back in WW2. It's an effective tactic, as long as one is willing to take off the gloves and go all out to defeat the enemy.

Since that time, the government has tried to operate under the pretense of running a "clean war," where everything is done by the book, according to international convention and the rules of war - as if we're some kind of Dudley Do-Right. Trouble is, it doesn't really seem to work to win wars.

It's really keeping rouges underfoot.

You don't want these psychopaths getting stronger and developing new technologies as some people seem to want that happening these days by portraying them as misunderstood harmless puppy dogs.

 

[Stevicus]

The US and UK are not the ones who started this.

Depends on what you mean by "this." The fact that we're over there at all and not staying home minding our own business is rather telling, don't you think?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Depends on what you mean by "this." The fact that we're over there at all and not staying home minding our own business is rather telling, don't you think?

I agree we should focus more on the domestic front, but to ignore rouge nations and factions is irresponsible.

They started the attacks, people needed help badly, and the US and UK responded as they should.

 

[Stevicus]

It's really keeping rouges underfoot.

You don't want these psychopaths getting stronger and developing new technologies as some people seem to want that happening these days by portraying them as misunderstood harmless puppy dogs.

Well, if that's really true, then they should go with the first option of total obliteration. Just taking random, sporadic potshots here and there doesn't serve any purpose other than make them madder and more entrenched. It doesn't seem to reduce their ability to make war.

 

[metis]

They tested us and we responded. Hopefully Iran pays attention to this and does not cause similar strikes on them. I don't think tkey're stupid enough to directly attack but given what is going on I would not "bet the farm" on that.

US and UK carry out airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen​

The US and UK militaries launched strikes against multiple Houthi targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen on Thursday, a US official and UK official told CNN.

The strikes were from fighter jets and Tomahawk missiles. More than a dozen Houthi targets were hit by missiles fired from air, surface, and sub platforms and were chosen for their ability to degrade the Houthis’ continued attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, a second US official told CNN.

They included radar systems, drone storage and launch sites, ballistic missile storage and launch sites, and cruise missile storage and launch sites.

IMO, we had no choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was just pointing out the obvious.



The U.S. government. You know how they always talk about being the "Leader of the Free World"?

USA is fighting a dirty war by supplying Israel
with the weapons used wrongfully against
Palestinians. USA has a long history of dirty
warfare, eg, biological & chemical weapons
to Iraq to use against Iran.
I'll wager that Israel's nukes were tech given
by USA. Trusting a violent paranoid theocracy
with nuclear weapons. How could that go wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, if that's really true, then they should go with the first option of total obliteration. Just taking random, sporadic potshots here and there doesn't serve any purpose other than make them madder and more entrenched. It doesn't seem to reduce their ability to make war.

I think it's more of a message to do what you want in your own backyard, just don't go out into international waters and start doing things with impunity with ships that are not your own property.

I think they know what they were getting into.

 

[Twilight Hue]

IMO, we had no choice.

Precisely. You just can't allow these kind of attacks to continue.

It was a justifiable defensive action.

 

[libre]

The war on terror is going great.

Any day now Islamist extremists will be completely wiped out and we can go back to life before 9/11, it could always just one more bomb away.

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO, we had no choice.

That is the battle cry of the fanatic.
"We had no choice" is said when they want
to do something terrible, & they reject the
other choices, as though they don't exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Houthis' attacks on shipping need to be dealt with, but it seems to me that history shows that military action alone will not achieve long-term and lasting peace.

Yes to both points, but where does that leave us?

So, for example, PBS notes ...

To ensure freedom of navigation, long a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy, the United States has spearheaded a twenty-country naval task force to protect commercial ships in the Red Sea and the neighboring Gulf of Aden, and deployed aircraft carriers to the region. The coalition approach was also applied during the 2019 spate of attacks. However, that effort included regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who experts say are unlikely to join the operation today.​

​

Skeptics of this strategy argue that a defensive posture alone is unlikely to deter Houthi attacks. The Houthis are using relatively inexpensive weaponry, including drones, to wreak costly damage, and naval vessels cannot escort every commercial ship. As a result, “it’s harder now than it’s ever been” to protect commercial vessels in the Red Sea, says CFR Military Fellow John P. Barrientos, who has commanded ships in the region. [source]​

Meanwhile, the economic collateral damage of Houthi attacks on noncombatants will grow, and the impact, particularly on the consumer, could be significant.

By sheer amount of death, suffering, and destruction caused to civilians, there's a solid case to be made that the Saudi, American, and British armies are bigger and more dangerous terrorist organizations than the Houthis.

Respectfully, I believe that's an unfortunate and unhelpful use of the term "terrorist." Nevertheless, they are certainly the more deadly belligerent force.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The war on terror is going great.

Any day now Islamist extremists will be completely wiped out and we can go back to life before 9/11, it could always just one more bomb away.

And therefore?

 

[libre]

Iran's navy seizes oil tanker in Gulf of Oman that was at the center of a major US-Iran crisis

Iran’s navy has seized an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman that once was at the center of a major crisis between Tehran and Washington, a seizure that further escalates tensions in the Mideast waterways.

apnews.com

They really, REALLY want a war with us.

On the contrary, the United States has been fishing with military conflict with Iran for decades. Well before Bush made a list of evil countries and starting invading them.

 

[libre]

And therefore?

The United States has demonstrated itself to be a conflict escalator in the Islamic world, engaging in kidnapping, torture, mass-bombings, etc. whilst failing to actually make meaningful gains to eliminate Islamic terrorism.
It's operations are not something I can support in good conscience.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The United States has demonstrated itself to be a conflict escalator in the Islamic world, engaging in kidnapping, torture, mass-bombings, etc. whilst failing to actually make meaningful gains to eliminate Islamic terrorism.

I completely agree.

It's operations are not something I can support in good conscience.

What, if anything, should be done in response to Houthi attacks on shipping?

 

[libre]

What, if anything, should be done in response to Houthi attacks on shipping?

It's a difficult question.
I don't think the US/UK realistically have any right to get involved in that region just because their cargo flows through an economically significant straight. However, at the same time it would be incredibly unrealistic to suggest these imperialist powers to willingly accommodate amendments to existing trade routes when they don't 'have' to. There is probably little more divine to the United States than 'the free flow of international commerce as necessary.'.

US military action encourages and provides feelings of safety to people traveling in the sea at a time that we should be discouraging such, given it's become a conflict zone.

This is a matter for neighboring countries and commerce to resolve.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think the US/UK realistically have any right to get involved in that region ...

It's frankly hard for me to read such introductory framing without thinking about the isolationism and appeasement that arguably invited World War II.

... it would be incredibly unrealistic to suggest these imperialist powers to willingly accommodate amendments to existing trade routes when they don't 'have' to.

Given that "accommodating amendments to existing trade routes" is a euphemism for diverting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, it would be wise to understand what that will mean and who will suffer.

The Red Sea is one of the most important arteries in the global shipping system, with one-third of all container traffic flowing through it. Any sustained disruption in trade there could send a ripple effect of higher costs throughout the world economy. This is particularly true of energy: 12 percent of seaborne oil and 8 percent of liquified natural gas (LNG) transit the Suez Canal.​

​

Avoiding the Red Sea means abandoning one of the most common global shipping routes from Asia to Europe. Indeed, 40 percent of Asia-Europe trade normally transits the sea. Ships shunning the Red Sea will have to instead sail around the Horn of Africa, which can cost $1 million more round trip in additional fuel costs. Still, more than one hundred fifty commercial ships have chosen the longer route since November. On the other hand, insurance premiums for ships using the Red Sea have shot up nearly tenfold since the attacks began. [source]​

The consequences could be devastating for those most likely to be crippled by inflation. History has taught us a good deal about imperialism, but it has also taught us that isolationism is a very cruel medicine.

This is a matter for neighboring countries and commerce to resolve.

Trump might agree. I do not.

 

[Laniakea]

That is the battle cry of the fanatic.
"We had no choice" is said when they want
to do something terrible, & they reject the
other choices, as though they don't exist.

"Something terrible" would be to just run away and let terrorists kill and destroy.

 

[Laniakea]

The United States has demonstrated itself to be a conflict escalator in the Islamic world, engaging in kidnapping, torture, mass-bombings, etc. whilst failing to actually make meaningful gains to eliminate Islamic terrorism.
It's operations are not something I can support in good conscience.

Well, we let go of Afghanistan after 20 years of trying to give girls a chance to become educated, and women to work and have equality. Now the Taliban has Afghanistan back under their control and women are oppressed once again.
So please re-evaluate what you can support in good conscience.

 

[Laniakea]

It's a difficult question.
I don't think the US/UK realistically have any right to get involved in that region just because their cargo flows through an economically significant straight. However, at the same time it would be incredibly unrealistic to suggest these imperialist powers to willingly accommodate amendments to existing trade routes when they don't 'have' to. There is probably little more divine to the United States than 'the free flow of international commerce as necessary.'.

US military action encourages and provides feelings of safety to people traveling in the sea at a time that we should be discouraging such, given it's become a conflict zone.

This is a matter for neighboring countries and commerce to resolve.

A matter for neighboring countries and commerce to resolve??? How does commerce resolve armed drones and ballistic missiles attacking their ships, assuming the ships haven't been taken over by the terrorists and the crews taken hostage?