US and UK hint at military action after largest Houthi attack in Red Sea

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Seems like this argument came from an opinion piece written by Marc Champion on Bloomberg's Nightly Briefing.  You're not the only one that subscribes to this.

 

It's an historical fact, not just apolitical opinion. Many people would have formed the same view. I saw exactly that sentiment expressed in a DW video interviewing a Cambridge professor.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Your post above shows that yours is the kind of emotionalism that shows you are incapable of logical and unbiased thoughts!

Empty accusation much?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

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.

 

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

[beautifulthailand99]

23 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

I love foxes - indeed I feed them back in the UK. Much misunderstood creatures.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

If the US does nothing? This is the kind of hysterical comment that always seems to be a consequence of war. I got news for you.  The US is already doing something in response to the Houthi attacks. In fact, it's doing a lot. Unless you think shooting down drones and intercepting missiles is nothing.  The question is  what will be an effective response. It seems dubious that these targeted missions will put an end to the Houthi attacks. Most likely, they will be seen as ineffective. So, unless the US plans a fullscale invasion of Yemen, better to continue as is. So far, the US and company have been very effective in thwarting Houthi attacks.

 

Another one of your dishonest posts: 'hysterical'? There was none of that. Just something you made up and tossed in. That's how you role.

 

As for the nonsense above - obviously, the USA does  not see shooting down drones and intercepting missiles as much more than a short-term solution. Regarding your bogus 'news for you' - here are some other news, as in the Houthis were told to stop, and they ignore that. You seem to think that not doing anything about it is an option. I don't. The USA seems to think it's not much of an option either.

 

Take it up with the USA.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

One after another screw up , never under estimate this piece of work and his DEI squad for a Administration to 

eff things up!The  Houthi and Iran are embarrassing Joey 2 scoops on another miscalculation! 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/16/biden-admin-ends-trump-era-houthi-terrorist-designation&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwi38da-nNqDAxU0V2wGHdbwD50QFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1up7POx_1ugloOenhnP5d4

Biden ended the Trump era alliance with Saudi Arabia that had the goal of eliminating Houthi rule in Yemen.

[Morch]

2 hours 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. 

 

I think there's still a bit of froth left. May want to take care of that.

[Morch]

2 hours 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.

 

The foreign affairs article is just a nothing piece. What it comes down to, after a long-winded review of things everyone knows is that the USA should find a solution for the Israel-Hamas war, then the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and then the situation with the Houthis may be resolved. That's not much of a plan, let alone a realistic or timely one.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Another one of your dishonest posts: 'hysterical'? There was none of that. Just something you made up and tossed in. That's how you role.

 

As for the nonsense above - obviously, the USA does  not see shooting down drones and intercepting missiles as much more than a short-term solution. Regarding your bogus 'news for you' - here are some other news, as in the Houthis were told to stop, and they ignore that. You seem to think that not doing anything about it is an option. I don't. The USA seems to think it's not much of an option either.

 

Take it up with the USA.

 

 

Characterizing what the US is doing in regards to the Houthis as nothing looks overwrought to me. But that's only because it is. Sometimes a short term plan is all you need. In this case, what course can the US pursue that will stop the Houthis? Keep in mind that the Houthis consider the US an enemy for very sound reasons. 

"Take it up with the USA?" Is that what you would have said to, say, people who were criticizing in this forum the Bush administration decision to wage war on Iraq? What point did you think you were making?

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The foreign affairs article is just a nothing piece. What it comes down to, after a long-winded review of things everyone knows is that the USA should find a solution for the Israel-Hamas war, then the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and then the situation with the Houthis may be resolved. That's not much of a plan, let alone a realistic or timely one.

Really? It does point out why the Saudis aren't happy with this situation. And definitely contradicts your assertion that it's just about sitting on the sidelines.

[Morch]

Just now, placeholder said:

Characterizing what the US is doing in regards to the Houthis as nothing looks overwrought to me. But that's only because it is. Sometimes a short term plan is all you need. In this case, what course can the US pursue that will stop the Houthis? Keep in mind that the Houthis consider the US an enemy for very sound reasons. 

"Take it up with the USA?" Is that what you would have said to, say, people who were criticizing in this forum the Bush administration decision to wage war on Iraq? What point did you think you were making?

 

I don't give two figs what you pretend things look to you. I do know that your style of 'debate' calls for constant injections of things that weren't said, weren't claimed and such made up characterizations as above.

 

Already addressed your repeated, pointless 'questions'. There was no claim that there's a magic solution. There are no guarantees things would be resolved easily. That's just something you seem to imply or falsely expect.

 

The point I was making, when telling you to take up your nonsense with the USA, is that the USA obviously does not see ongoing defensive posturing as a viable solution. You seem to think it is, but fail to generate much traction even on this forum.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? It does point out why the Saudis aren't happy with this situation. And definitely contradicts your assertion that it's just about sitting on the sidelines.

 

It offers explanations, there can be others. It does not 'contradict' my assertion - it's not an either/or thing. The Saudis can have various motivations for their positions.

 

And, evidently, you're dodging the main point I referred to. It's how you role.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I don't give two figs what you pretend things look to you. I do know that your style of 'debate' calls for constant injections of things that weren't said, weren't claimed and such made up characterizations as above.

 

Already addressed your repeated, pointless 'questions'. There was no claim that there's a magic solution. There are no guarantees things would be resolved easily. That's just something you seem to imply or falsely expect.

 

The point I was making, when telling you to take up your nonsense with the USA, is that the USA obviously does not see ongoing defensive posturing as a viable solution. You seem to think it is, but fail to generate much traction even on this forum.

I'm not concerned about winning popularity contests. In fact, I'll even vote for you to be prom king. 

As for what the US thinks, that's funny coming from you considering your insistence that widespread starvation in Gaza is by no means proven.. Think the US agrees with you on that one? 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I'm not concerned about winning popularity contests. In fact, I'll even vote for you to be prom king. 

As for what the US thinks, that's funny coming from you considering your insistence that widespread starvation in Gaza is by no means proven.. Think the US agrees with you on that one? 

 

Considering you obsessive efforts to flood topics with issues you want to talk about, and they whiny responses when this doesn't work out - I call BS.

 

As for you deflection above - it's a deflection. It's not even quite what I actually said, but that's how you role. May I remind you the topic is about Yemen?

 

And you still haven't addressed my point regarding the Foreign Policy article you linked.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It offers explanations, there can be others. It does not 'contradict' my assertion - it's not an either/or thing. The Saudis can have various motivations for their positions.

 

And, evidently, you're dodging the main point I referred to. It's how you role.

The article had lots of useful and specific information. And please spare me the BS about it not contradicting your assertion. You challenged my explanation with your own. And given the situation vis a via Iran and the Houthis, the explanations offered in both articles are far superior to the nonspecific one that you offered.

[Morch]

Just now, placeholder said:

The article had lots of useful and specific information. And please spare me the BS about it not contradicting your assertion. You challenged my explanation with your own. And given the situation vis a via Iran and the Houthis, the explanations offered in both articles are far superior to the nonspecific one that you offered.

 

The information is mostly common knowledge. One could get the same from Wikipedia. Your concept of 'challenge' seems to be tied to your black and white view of things. Pointing out that there are other motivations, rather than a single explanation is something different.

 

The bottom line of the nonsense article you linked was that the 'solution' was the USA finding a way to end the Hamas-Israel war, then resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and then, maybe, tackle the issues with the Houthis. All this was packaged under 'diplomacy'. A bit of a tall order there, and of course, nothing to stop the Houthis from doing the same again, on whatever pretext.

 

You can continue to ignore that, deflect, push some new 'issues' or whatever.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The information is mostly common knowledge. One could get the same from Wikipedia. Your concept of 'challenge' seems to be tied to your black and white view of things. Pointing out that there are other motivations, rather than a single explanation is something different.

 

The bottom line of the nonsense article you linked was that the 'solution' was the USA finding a way to end the Hamas-Israel war, then resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and then, maybe, tackle the issues with the Houthis. All this was packaged under 'diplomacy'. A bit of a tall order there, and of course, nothing to stop the Houthis from doing the same again, on whatever pretext.

 

You can continue to ignore that, deflect, push some new 'issues' or whatever.

If it was such common knowledge, how come you didn't seem to have a clue about the Saudi fears of the Yemen truce unraveling and renewed conflict with Iran.

And her conclusion agrees with mine: sometimes there's nothing more that you can do. 

[beautifulthailand99]

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Peter Zeihan who can be over the target on some things thinks this is just a limited 'spanking' from US/UK as they have not the appetite or resources to go head to head with the Houthis as it would be an Iraq scale disaster if they did. The question must be if they are suffciently riled and go rogue from Iran is what damage can they do ? They can certainly set Saudi oil fields alight as they have before and start an upwards agressive spike on oil that will have Trump cheering on his almost certain win. Sleepy Joe has no good choices now just bad and less bad. Time to buy or hold gold. That said I bought a fair amount a year ago and was thinking of taking some profits - I'll hold for the time being.

 

 

This Economist article I've just read aligns with my general thoughts on the subject.

 

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/01/12/the-houthis-have-survived-worse-than-americas-and-britains-strikes

 

It could also strengthen their hand in peace talks with Saudi Arabia. A few years ago the Saudis might have cheered Western strikes on the Houthis. Today they are in the awkward position of calling for calm, lest the group decide to expand its campaign by targeting Gulf states with missiles or drones (as they have done hundreds of times in the past). The events of the past two months will reinforce to the Saudis why they want to cut a deal and end their war—even if it leaves the Houthis as the dominant force in Yemen.

 

America does not want to be dragged into another long Middle Eastern conflict. The Houthis have no such qualms. They outlasted Mr Saleh, who fought a series of brutal counter-insurgency campaigns against them. They exhausted the Saudi-led coalition. And now they are no doubt pleased to have drawn America into its own open-ended operation. ■

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

If it was such common knowledge, how come you didn't seem to have a clue about the Saudi fears of the Yemen truce unraveling and renewed conflict with Iran.

And her conclusion agrees with mine: sometimes there's nothing more that you can do. 

 

You are making things up again, as usual - 'didn't seem to have a clue'? Only in your delusional mind. It was even mentioned earlier on another topic. I provided other considerations. That you insist on framing things as black and white, either/or - this is your thing, stop projecting your deficiencies on my posts.

 

She had no 'conclusion'. It's a nothing article. And you are still dodging the point made.

 

As for your last bit - try reading posts made earlier, you'll find the same comments were already made.

[beautifulthailand99]

On 1/11/2024 at 3:13 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Wonder who will give up first if the Houthis can just keep sending cheap drones ( even unarmed ones ) to make the ships use up lots of expensive missiles.

I expect they have thought of doing that.

As a British taxpayer I paid towards those - for the expat Thai armchair generals cheering on from their bar stools moaning about Thai tax I will receive donations.

[Hawaiian]

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.

[Bkk Brian]

Freeing hostages is the first step to peace in Mid-East

As events in the Middle East war escalate and threaten to spread, the world must not lose sight of where it all began. One hundred days after Hamas terrorists stormed into Israel on October 7 to unleash a wave of indiscriminate killing and hostage-taking, we highlight the plight of those who have been taken captive. Their release may not be the full answer to ending the war but it is an essential first step to securing peace.
 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/editorials/freeing-hostages-is-the-first-step-to-peace-in-mideast/news-story/62bb907ede581496fe6fd9a7f5cc4267?amp&nk=44c7e31cde6163721fef584f1385a25f-1705190474

https://archive.ph/nsHuf

[Bkk Brian]

Houthis release video of simulated assault on Israeli village that includes hostage-taking

Yemen’s Houthis release a video simulating an assault by the Iran-backed rebel group on an Israeli community, similar to the Hamas-led atrocities of October 7.

In the clip, Houthi commandos enter a building after storming the fake village, with one of them shooting a poster of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they do so.

Inside are a pair of men dressed in ultra-Orthodox garb, whom the Houthis take hostage before eventually blowing up the mockup.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/houthis-release-video-of-simulated-assault-on-israeli-village-that-includes-hostage-taking/

 

 

 

The Houthis practicing taking over an “Israeli settlement” and taking hostages in northern yemen.

any more proof required for people to understand that every Iranian proxy has the same goal?

 

[Hawaiian]

12 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

As a British taxpayer I paid towards those - for the expat Thai armchair generals cheering on from their bar stools moaning about Thai tax I will receive donations.

The whole world will pay in one way or another, whether it be in shortages of critical supplies or higher prices for those goods that are available. And if the Red Sea shipping lanes remains shut down for a prolonged period of time it will most likely lead to job losses and corresponding problems.  

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224357964/red-sea-shipping-attacks-have-economic-implications-for-the-entire-world

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/12/2024 at 9:34 PM, Danderman123 said:

Why would you believe the Houthis?

Why not?

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Biden ended the Trump era alliance with Saudi Arabia that had the goal of eliminating Houthi rule in Yemen.

The poster you quoted gave a link. You did not. If it's a case of believe either of you I'll go for the poster that provided proof.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours 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. 

I can't see anything in that post to disagree with.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There are steps that the US could take short of a land invasion.

 

Specifically, removal of all Houthi intelligence assets from the Red Sea.

LOL. You must think the US knows where they all are.

You dreamer you.

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It offers explanations, there can be others. It does not 'contradict' my assertion - it's not an either/or thing. The Saudis can have various motivations for their positions.

 

And, evidently, you're dodging the main point I referred to. It's how you role.

Here's the heart of what you wrote: : 

" I don't see them not getting involved as implying what you push, no. Sitting on the sidelines whenever possible is quite normal."

 

And to forestall you accusing me of taking your quote out of context, here's the whole thing

 

Clearly, you had no use for any other explanation of why the Saudis are behaving the way they are. Instead you resorted to some tired all purpose explanation. 

Unfortunately for me, I have misplaced my volume of the collected comments of Morch. So, I'm going to have to go on what you wrote here. And your dismissal of the fact of Saudi fears about the present situation and the reason for that, but instead promoting the notion that it's just their innate cautiousness at work, is clearly wrong.

And your criticism of that piece in foreign policy stems entirely from the fact that the author explicitly says there is no short term solution to the problem. Could be that some problems are just insoluble in the short or medium term, or that actions taken to solve one problem may ultimately make the situation worse or even create new, worse problems. The 2nd Iraq war comes to mind.

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's the heart of what you wrote: : 

" I don't see them not getting involved as implying what you push, no. Sitting on the sidelines whenever possible is quite normal."

 

And to forestall you accusing me of taking your quote out of context, here's the whole thing

 

Clearly, you had no use for any other explanation of why the Saudis are behaving the way they are. Instead you resorted to some tired all purpose explanation. 

Unfortunately for me, I have misplaced my volume of the collected comments of Morch. So, I'm going to have to go on what you wrote here. And your dismissal of the fact of Saudi fears about the present situation and the reason for that, but instead promoting the notion that it's just their innate cautiousness at work, is clearly wrong.

And your criticism of that piece in foreign policy stems entirely from the fact that the author explicitly says there is no short term solution to the problem. Could be that some problems are just insoluble in the short or medium term, or that actions taken to solve one problem may ultimately make the situation worse or even create new, worse problems. The 2nd Iraq war comes to mind.

 

Oh, you're doing that I-will-tell-you-what-you-actually-meant bit? 'Clearly' maybe in your mind. The way I see it, you're just looking for any bit you can twist, just to score a point - whether things were actually said or not, that's a minor consideration for you. That's how you role, and that's why there are less and less posters who engage with you.

 

Allow me to dismiss your nonsense about there being only one consideration relevant for Saudi Arabia's position. That you tend to over simplify these things to suit whichever current argument you're pushing is nothing new.

 

All of your argumentative stance stems from the fact that you don't actually pay attention to what people actually post, but rather engage in some imaginary points that you seem to think they should have posted. I clearly said that there are no good solutions - how is this different from from your last bit of waffle?

 

And yet again - you dodge. You do not address the futile nature of the 'solution' the author puts forth. Nor does this silliness address the fact that appeasing the Houthis once might very well lead to them repeating this trick whenever they want something.