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

[Revoltingest]

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

You see a false binary, ie, either wanton vicious
destruction of guilty & innocents alike, or
"run away". Such blind hatred kills reason,
& dooms them to continual conflict.

 

[Laniakea]

You see a false binary, ie, either wanton vicious
destruction of guilty & innocents alike, or
"run away". Such blind hatred kills reason,
& dooms them to continual conflict.

Then let's introduce a third option: Sitting down at a negotiation table after your enemy brutally kills 1,200 of your people so you can ask them what you must do to make them not want to do that again?

Or maybe the fourth option: Simply stop existing in order to fulfil the enemies goal of wiping you off the face of the Earth?

 

[libre]

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.

Afghanistan is testimony against the war on terror not a case for it.

An unsustainable occupation that left even more arms in the hands of the terrorists and killed many senselessly is most definitely something that no one should not have supported. It's true that for a period civil rights were improved for women, but these short-lived benefits came at immense human price and Afghan terrorists were left with state of the art weapons when the west had to withdraw.

It did not go well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then let's introduce a third option: Sitting down at a negotiation table after your enemy brutally kills 1,200 of your people so you can ask them what you must do to make them not want to do that again?

Did you forget that this 1,200 is somewhat offset by
Israel's killing of 23,000+, & maiming of far more,
& driving millions from destroyed homes, & now
demanding that they "voluntarily" move to Africa?

Your option is disingenuous.

Or maybe the fourth option: Simply stop existing in order to fulfil the enemies goal of wiping you off the face of the Earth?

I should know better by now. But still I marvel
at how the fervent zionist is blind to any solution
but the status quo of oppression & war crimes.

How about ending apartheid, economic embargo,
injustice, murder, torture, & general oppression
of Palestinians? Keeping them poor & abused
is a guarantee that a Hamas will always retaliate.

 

[Laniakea]

Did you forget that this 1,200 is somewhat offset by
Israel's killing of 23,000+, & maiming of far more,
& driving millions from destroyed homes, & now
demanding that they "voluntarily" move to Africa?

Your option is disingenuous.

The numbers you cite are given by the same organization that orchestrated the murder of 1,200 Israelis.
Little surprise that Hamas considers it's own gunmen to be innocents.

I should know better by now. But still I marvel
at how the fervent zionist is blind to any solution
but the status quo of oppression & war crimes.

How about ending apartheid, economic embargo,
injustice, murder, torture, & general oppression
of Palestinians? Keeping them poor & abused
is a guarantee that a Hamas will always retaliate.

How about not firing unguided rockets indiscrimnately into Israeli civilian areas? Hamas still doesn't seem to understand that they're going to be hunted down like dogs as long as they keep doing that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I'm not against highly precise, focused attacks against Houthi targets that are strictly for the purpose of defending the safety of shipping routes. However, I believe that if these military measures are not paired with political efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region using the influence and involvement that the US and the UK already have there, the effectiveness of the military actions will be crippled at best, and they may further inflame the situation at worst.

The US and the UK have acted as catalysts for and supporters of war and violence in the Middle East on multiple occasions, including in Yemen, and they are now doing the same regarding the Gaza war instead of trying to mediate or de-escalate. This is why I find the strikes to be a form of solely using a hammer in a situation where much more than mere force is needed.

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

I could see valid objections to such use of the term. I would be willing to expand on why I believe there's a case for that use—even though I'm certainly not attached to it and am also quite open to arguments against it—but that would be best left for another thread.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm tired of how often the US gets blamed for everything including in this case what Saudi Arabia has done in Yemen and is thought of as the worse evil.

The US has been an active participant in the Yemen war as a military and political supporter of the Saudi-led coalition's actions, including by supplying Saudi Arabia with some of the weapons it has used against Yemen, so it's not like it's receiving blame when it's an agent of peace or a distant observer. I don't see why it shouldn't receive part of the blame for the situation in Yemen—the situation that has helped to empower the Houthis—proportionately to how much it has been complicit in contributing to it. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the UK, and all of the other contributors to the humanitarian crisis.

We're not perfect but when a terrorist group attacks neutrals, when a Muslim group calls for a genocide and tries to make it happen, I say "God bless the United States of America"

As I said in my previous post, when terrorist groups become empowered against the backdrop of geopolitical and military circumstances that the US has widely contributed to effecting and shaping instead of trying to de-escalate them or at least not contribute to them, merely using military force without accompanying diplomatic efforts pursuing de-escalation is almost guaranteed to have lower effectiveness, if not make the situation worse.

Also, I'm not sure whether you're referring to Hamas or the Houthis, but I find it strange to describe either as a "Muslim group," as if that were its chief feature—not "extremist group" or even "Islamist group," but "Muslim group." Is there any point to describing either as such? Is that the most salient feature about either rather than, say, its violent tactics or its agenda?

I realize that all of us (myself included, of course) sometimes have different intentions from what some of our posts might convey per another person's reading thereof, though, so when there's room for doubt, I usually prefer not to form any conclusions before asking people what they mean, like I have just asked in this post.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So in this discussion, is it possible to be anti-Hamas AND anti-Israel?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, but our government always passes themselves off as the "good guys" fighting evil, and a significant portion of the electorate still believes it.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Based on what the Houthi leader said in his response, it doesn't appear they got the message.

 

[Revoltingest]

The numbers you cite are given by the same organization that orchestrated the murder of 1,200 Israelis.
Little surprise that Hamas considers it's own gunmen to be innocents.

You dislike the source.
Do you claim a different number?
Perhaps we shouldn't trust Israel's numbers,
given their hatred of Palestinians.

How about not firing unguided rockets indiscrimnately into Israeli civilian areas? Hamas still doesn't seem to understand that they're going to be hunted down like dogs as long as they keep doing that.

Compare the death totals.
Compare how many people have been de-housed.
It's hypocritical of you to dis my understanding,
when yours is so fanatically zionist & lacking humanity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but our government always passes themselves off as the "good guys" fighting evil, and a significant portion of the electorate still believes it.

OK.
But I find them to be lying murderous
vicious stupid whelps of unwed curs.

On 2nd thought, that's unfair to dogs.

 

[Laniakea]

You dislike the source.
Do you claim a different number?
Perhaps we shouldn't trust Israel's numbers,
given their hatred of Palestinians.

Considering that the source is a terrorist organization, I think "dislike" is mild.

Compare the death totals.
Compare how many people have been de-housed.

Is that your measure of when a threat has been neutralized? Death totals (as claimed by the enemy?)
Nah. I'd say Hamas has been defeated when they've returned the hostages they've taken, and stop randomly firing rockets into Israel.
Hamas has already been told that the war ends when the hostages are returned. Hamas doesn't seem to want it to end, so it continues.

It's hypocritical of you to dis my understanding,
when yours is so fanatically zionist & lacking humanity.

I'm not the one who keeps writing in support of a terrorist organization, and against our closest ally in the middle east.
Also, I know this world is in real trouble when I hear people say that stopping terrorism is "fanatical".

 

[sun rise]

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

This is one of those "if you don't like it, what would you do" situations. The only alternatives I can see is either genocide for those living in Israel or letting the Houthis do whatever they want and ignore the consequences. I'm totally against both of those options.

 

[sun rise]

Based on what the Houthi leader said in his response, it doesn't appear they got the message.

They want a war and will do everything they can to widen the unholy mess in Gaza to the entire middle east.

Personally I would put every jet we have in the air, hit the afterburners and make a very low level supersonic pass to reinforce the message.

 

[Laniakea]

OK.
But I find them to be lying murderous
vicious stupid whelps of unwed curs.

On 2nd thought, that's unfair to dogs.

If your home is ever invaded by armed thugs, don't call the police. They're the government.
You could set an example by dealing with the invaders the way you think Israel's military should deal with Hamas terrorists.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not against highly precise, focused attacks against Houthi targets that are strictly for the purpose of defending the safety of shipping routes. However, I believe that if these military measures are not paired with political efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region using the influence and involvement that the US and the UK already have there, the effectiveness of the military actions will be crippled at best, and they may further inflame the situation at worst.

That's a nice sentiment and one I agree with. But their sponsor and mentor, Iran, just seized a ship as well. So it's clear to me that Iran is behind their actions or at least approves of them.

 

[Laniakea]

That's a nice sentiment and one I agree with. But their sponsor and mentor, Iran, just seized a ship as well. So it's clear to me that Iran is behind their actions or at least approves of them.

Biden has given Iran $6 billion before the Oct. 7th attack on Israel, and then another $10 billion afterwards. Considering their behavior, they seem to understand they'll be rewarded handsomely when they supply arms to our enemies, and seize ships and take hostages.

 

[Stevicus]

They want a war and will do everything they can to widen the unholy mess in Gaza to the entire middle east.

Personally I would put every jet we have in the air, hit the afterburners and make a very low level supersonic pass to reinforce the message.

It appears there have been numerous factions in the Middle East who have had a serious grudge against the U.S. for a very long time now. Many seem quite desperate and reckless - and they don't seem to care about what the U.S. military could do to their countries. However, the civilian non-combatants in the region only know they're getting bombed by the U.S., and that will only cause greater resentment against the U.S. - so they won't really get the message either.

Some of the governments in that region which we support are also less than savory, so that can also muddle any messages we try to send.

 

[libre]

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]

I don't think that the prices of oil and consumer goods are justifiable grounds for military intervention.