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

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I think you need reminding of what I wrote and your reply:

How does Israel pausing solve the Houthi problem?

You were the one that brought up Israel, have you forgotten already?

 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You've got a nasty habit of dishonestly implying other posters said things which are actually injected by you into the conversation.

 

Who said it was 'counterproductive'? You? Certainly wasn't me. Out goes your first 'argument'.

 

Commentators are a dime a dozen, and what does the Houthis' popularity got to do with anything?

 

Neighboring countries aren't happy about things - yes, and? How does that effect things? Are they happy with maritime traffic disruption?

 

Again, i did not say anything about 'actions the endanger the current regimes in the region', nor do I see how they are exactly 'endangered' - and obviously, 'good idea' is your own addition. Same goes for 'worth the risk'.

 

Shooting drones is not a solution, and obviously the USA does not see it as such either.

 

 

I was not accusing you of claiming it was counterproductive. Rather posing it as a possibility. And you don't see how neighboring countries' regimes endangered? If the US escalates its response against the Houthis, you think the local citizenry are going to be happy about their governments' friendly relations with the US? Have you noticed that MbS isn't exactly thrilled with the US response? In fact, have any of the locals joined in or even approved of these actions? You don't see the potential for major arrest if the US seriously escalates its response?

And if the US just continues as it has been and the Houthis keep up their attacks, which seems likely, doesn't that actually make the US look weak?

Edited January 13 by placeholder

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You were the one that brought up Israel, have you forgotten already?

 

But you're the one who answered my question by citing a stop by Israel. In fact, a pause would solve nothing in regards to the Houthis. 

[Bkk Brian]

13 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.

then doing nothing, as you call it, is the better option.

 

Except just about every real expert disagrees with the do nothing option. 

 

Experts react: What to know about US and UK strikes on the Houthis in Yemen

The decision by the United States and allies to strike Houthi assets on January 11 was necessary and right. The Houthis had conducted more than two dozen attacks in the last seven weeks, disrupting global maritime traffic and threatening allies. But the US and UK strikes are unlikely to halt Houthi aggression in the Red Sea.

For the United States and the coalition, the goal is to restore deterrence. That will almost certainly mean having to continue to respond to Houthi strikes, and potentially with increasing aggression in order to have a meaningful impact on Houthi leadership thinking.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-to-know-about-us-and-uk-strikes-on-the-houthis-in-yemen/

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, placeholder said:

But you're the one who answered my question by citing a stop by Israel. In fact, a pause would solve nothing in regards to the Houthis. 

Yes I tend to reply to posts but I see you ignored this one:

 

 "Pauses are always an opportunity for further talks and further ceasefires."

[Morch]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I was not accusing you of claiming it was counterproductive. Rather posing it as a possibility. And you don't see how neighboring endangered? If the US escalates its response against the Houthis, you think the local citizenry are going to be happy about their governments' friendly relations with the US? Have you noticed that MbS isn't exactly thrilled with the US response? In fact, have any of the locals joined in or even approved of these actions? You don't see the potential for major arrest if the US seriously escalates its response?

And if the US just continues as it has been and the Houthis keep up their attacks, which seems likely, doesn't that actually make the US look weak?

 

No, you're intentionally posting things in a misleading manner. This is nothing new.

 

Endangered how? Saudis care much about the Houthis now? MbS not being thrilled is not about his rule being 'endangered' - I guess that like everyone, he doesn't like the boat being rocked, but that holds for the Houthis' own actions. I don't see them not getting involved as implying what you push, no. Sitting on the sidelines whenever possible is quite normal.

 

And if the USA does nothing, what does it make it look like?

 

Again - you have no answers, at least not ones which you share - but somehow expect your own questions to be addressed and that others provide 'solutions'. Goes back to your questionable 'debate' style.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But you're the one who answered my question by citing a stop by Israel. In fact, a pause would solve nothing in regards to the Houthis. 

 

There you go again.

[placeholder]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes I tend to reply to posts but I see you ignored this one:

 

 "Pauses are always an opportunity for further talks and further ceasefires."

Sure they are. Absolutely. It's almost a dead cert that once a pause is estableishe, Israel will readily agree to an extension. You've got to be kidding. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

 

 

Sure they are. Absolutely. It's almost a dead cert that once a pause is estableishe, Israel will readily agree to an extension. You've got to be kidding. 

Why not, it was agreeing to a further extension of the Nov pause but Hamas refused

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There you go again.

More nonsense from you. I posed a question about what would stop the Houthis. BrianBkk tried to blameshift onto Hamas and claimed first that a "stop" later revised into a "pause" would be just the ticket. Since you've decided to insert yourself into this, how would a pause solve the Houthi problem?

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, placeholder said:

More nonsense from you. I posed a question about what would stop the Houthis. BrianBkk tried to blameshift onto Hamas and claimed first that a "stop" later revised into a "pause" would be just the ticket. Since you've decided to insert yourself into this, how would a pause solve the Houthi problem?

Your quote

 

Looks like the Houthis won't stop until Israel stops.

 

My response remains the same and it is not a blameshift, it is reality.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More nonsense from you. I posed a question about what would stop the Houthis. BrianBkk tried to blameshift onto Hamas and claimed first that a "stop" later revised into a "pause" would be just the ticket. Since you've decided to insert yourself into this, how would a pause solve the Houthi problem?

 

No, more of your usual games.

You ask contrived, pointless, leading, loaded questions - then attack the answers.

You do not offer anything, just ask others for answers and solutions.

 

I did not 'insert' myself, this is a public forum.

 

And I have already opined on your new loaded 'question' - maybe try reading instead of 'asking'.

[retarius]

On 1/11/2024 at 3:02 PM, Morch said:

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Being the strategic genius that you are, how would you tackle the fact that this group is disrupting international maritime commerce?

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. 

[Morch]

Just now, 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. 

 

Basically, you support terrorism, piracy, and disruption of world commerce to accommodate the agenda of a dodgy group - to service your wider political agenda. That's nice. I guess that you hold this position because you currently feel it doesn't directly effect you. Makes it easier to spew these kind of 'views'.

[Georgealbert]

19 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. 

So the world should turn a blind eye to an extremist terrorist group, that started a civil war in its own country, which is on going and based on religion, and now feel entitled to launch attacks on civilians and civilian shipping?

 

Attacks using drones and missiles which the Houthi launched first, you do understand this was retaliation for their stupidity.

 

Plus you want to arm these groups further? Really?

 

Where is the proof they are only attacking ships linked to Israel? And please don't reply that the Houthi’s have said so! 

 

If you re route all traffic away from the Red Sea, you add time and expense to all ship freight that use that route.

Edited January 13 by Georgealbert

[Hawaiian]

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.

Edited January 13 by Hawaiian
punctuation

[Hawaiian]

23 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. 

Shoot down Western bombers?  Every heard of the various guided missile systems that are in the toolbox?  This is the 21st century!

[Hawaiian]

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.

[Hawaiian]

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.

[retarius]

13 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

"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.

Just how many have been killed or injured?

[retarius]

19 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Shoot down Western bombers?  Every heard of the various guided missile systems that are in the toolbox?  This is the 21st century!

How about Russia donating some S400s and S500s when they've shots all the US's F16s down?

[retarius]

32 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

So the world should turn a blind eye to an extremist terrorist group, that started a civil war in its own country, which is on going and based on religion, and now feel entitled to launch attacks on civilians and civilian shipping?

 

Attacks using drones and missiles which the Houthi launched first, you do understand this was retaliation for their stupidity.

 

Plus you want to arm these groups further? Really?

 

Where is the proof they are only attacking ships linked to Israel? And please don't reply that the Houthi’s have said so! 

 

If you re route all traffic away from the Red Sea, you add time and expense to all ship freight that use that route.

Yes, the world should not turn a blind eye to the evil Israeli genocide, and shout turn a blind eye to the inconvenience and extra cost of travelling around the Cape. To be c lear I have no time for warmongers like yourself and others who revel in bloodshed and bask in imagined reflected glory. Such immoral and vile attitudes make me sick. 

[Georgealbert]

6 minutes ago, retarius said:

Just how many have been killed or injured?

555555 funniest post today.
 

So they launched the missiles for a fireworks display?
 

There was no intention to kill or cause damage?

 

Maybe is a welcoming display for Red Sea shipping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Georgealbert]

2 minutes ago, retarius said:

Yes, the world should not turn a blind eye to the evil Israeli genocide, and shout turn a blind eye to the inconvenience and extra cost of traveling around the Cape. To be c lear I have no time for warmongers like yourself and others who revel in bloodshed and bask in imagined reflected glory. Such immoral and vile attitudes make me sick. 

Post a link to the fact that the ships they are attacking are linked to Israel, or you have nothing.

 

i am the warmonger, but you are supporting a terrorist group that  launched the attacks first and suggest arming them further to try to kill more. 555555

 

You arrogance is hiding the fact of your ignorance.

 

Bye, enjoy you day, I don't waste time on BS

[Hawaiian]

8 minutes ago, retarius said:

Just how many have been killed or injured?

Where have you been?  Quite obvious no where close to the Red Sea, where some commercial vessels have suffered damage with one ship actually set afire before being extinguished.  You have not replied to my suggestion about reporting back with a first hand account.  That is, if you survive.

[Hawaiian]

13 minutes ago, retarius said:

How about Russia donating some S400s and S500s when they've shots all the US's F16s down?

Idiotic post that is not forum related.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Where have you been?  Quite obvious no where close to the Red Sea, where some commercial vessels have suffered damage with one ship actually set afire before being extinguished.  You have not replied to my suggestion about reporting back with a first hand account.  That is, if you survive.

 

I don't want to be picky but how to you draw a line between a ship being damaged and people killed or injured?

[Hawaiian]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I don't want to be picky but how to you draw a line between a ship being damaged and people killed or injured?

I am not a line-drawing person.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hawaiian said:

I am not a line-drawing person.

 

then your response made no sense

 

Edited January 13 by ozimoron

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, retarius said:

Just how many have been killed or injured?

 

How many would make you fuzzy and warm inside, knowing it's for the righteous fight?