Hawaiian

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Opinion Piece

 

A regional war in the Middle East is already here

For decades a low-intensity regional war in the Middle East has been ongoing, but it took Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7 to bring this conflict into sharper focus.  

For some time, a mostly shadowy “gray zone” contest for influence in Syria and Iraq has taken place. Occasionally, “tit-for-tat attacks” play out elsewhere in the Middle East. But now, the conflict is coalescing into a full-blown Iranian axis of resistance that’s been growing stronger for years. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4405070-a-regional-war-in-the-middle-east-is-already-here/

From this link: "even the ghosts of the Israel-Palestine colonial past are being resurrected in polarizing debates about this conflict."  A lot of attempts at rehashing this by certain individuals on this forum.  Enough, already.

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Proposals by Egypt are not Israel negotiating.,

If you read the article, you would have seen this, "Israel offered no immediate public response to the revised plan."  Your response appeared about a minute after my post, so I rather doubt you even bothered to read the article.

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

As I pointed out before, the hen house and predators in question are nowhere near where you live.

Seems I am not the only one confused by your reply.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And I should have added that your henhouse is located a lot closer to those foxes than it is to where you live.

I should have mentioned that here in Hawaii, we don't have foxes, we have mongoose.  The other day my hen scared off a mongoose attempting to grab one of her chicks. When he came back the second time I nailed him with my pellet gun.

Action speaks louder than words.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Saudis have been heavily invested in a rapprochement with Iran and with extricating itself from its disastrous military misadventure in Iran. There is an excellent article from Reuters which goes into this in some detail. However we can't link to reuters. Still if you look up the article looking for riyadh reluctant and the date of dec 21, 2023, you should have no trouble locating it.

Here's a link to an article in Foreign which explains  why the best of the bad options is not to bomb the Houthis.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/yemen/dont-bomb-houthis

Among other things the author points out how such bombing could reignite the civil war in Yemen. The last thing the Saudis want is a resumption of conflict in Yemen.

 

As for the those who decided to bomb Yemen, whatever their intent, and it looks to me more like a Hail Mary pass than anything else, it seems dubious that they're going to slow down the Houthis much.

Sure as hell wouldn't want YOU guarding my hen house.  The fox would have a holiday.

15 minutes ago, retarius said:

Exactly my point, some ships have been damaged....but I have only read of one dead. If there were many ship hands dead, you would have read about it as it would have been hyped up to the max by the US/UK war PR machine. This is a disproportionate response by the US/UK and is killing people. Look the US bombed Libya, hundreds dead and now it is a disaster, oil cut off just a few days back as a refinery was occupied. Iraq bombed to a cinder, and still a basket case. Afghanistan 20 years of killing to get the Taliban back? I wouldn't be so freaked out by this, but it doesn't work....the US haven't won a war since WW2 when they used nukes. All this is is bullying to protect evil Israel. End of story. If you warmongers get excited about all theses folk being killed, then there is something seriously wrong with your morals and decency. 

According to your logic it is not immoral or indecent to interrupt international shipping as punishment for Israel not stopping in Gaza.  That is the justification the Houthis have given.  To put it bluntly, you have wacky way of expressing yourself.  Totally confusing, to say the least.

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have no idea who Marc Champion is. What I do know is that recent history teaches us that suppressing forces like the Houthis would take years and a huge commitment.

I don't think that is the intent of the U.S. and the U.K.  I believe the goal is to degrade the Houthi's ability to continue their aerial barrage on commercial shipping.  How long it takes is anyone's guess.  However, the U.S. will not tolerate these constant attacks any longer and is determined to continue as necessary.  If I am not mistaken, the Saudis still have some intelligence operations going on there.  If they are sharing information, it surely will be done covertly.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Mobile doesn't imply impossible, just harder.

 

Whether the strikes, in their current form, will deter the Houthis is doubtful, but then again - what are the options? Or was there any expectation things will start off with an all out assault? These things tend to follow a course.

 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting or what your point is.

He doesn't know himself.  Just enjoys being argumentative.

29 minutes ago, retarius said:

I'd reroute shipping and avoid the area. The Houthis found a nice and easy way to do very little harm to people, so minimal bloodshed to put pressure on murderous Israel. I applaud them.

There's no excuse for bombing. When the only toll in your tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The problem with the totally immoral West is that they use any excuse for a good bombing.

I'd like to see these smaller nations and insurgents with better defensive weapons able to shoot down Western bombers. 

And I realise that this is not a popular view, but I hold people who support western military actions over the past 50 or 60 years, too be contemptible people who have warped morals. 

"very little harm to people"  Then why don't you prove it by transiting the Red Sea.

Don't forget to hug the eastern coastline and fly an Israeli flag.

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, if what you call the least bad option actually is counterproductive, then doing nothing, as you call it, is the better option. As numerous commentators have pointed out, these attacks will only make the Houthis more popular. Neighboring countries aren't happy about these attacks for fear they could destabilize their countries. You think actions that endanger the current regimes in the region are a good idea? That it's worth the risk? And it isn't as though nothing is being done. The US and others are shooting down drones.

You've got to be kidding.  If anyone is upset, it is Iran. MBS has to put on a front.  In reality, he want's the Houthi's missile capability to be neutered.   Who do you think attacked Saudi Arabian infrastructure a couple years ago with drones and missiles?  In case you have forgotten, one attack inflicted substantial damage to their oil storage facilities.

This disruption in international shipping is causing problems for everyone.  One thing is for sure, Egypt isn't happy.  The Suez Canal generates a significant amount of money for the country.  Erdogan won't admit it, but this not good for Turkey, either.  This list could go on and on.

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So this means that you agree with Morch. I'm supposed to know this how? Is he your official spokesperson?

No, he is not my spokesman.  I just happen to agree with him on this particular issue.

Seems as if your feelings are hurt because no one,so far, has supported your position.

By the way, this forum is for grownups.