lollontee posted:

Regardless, well done on noticing that governments are sometimes formed by parties with unfriendly relations but mutual goals. We're all very impressed and I am personally appalled by this kind of immorality.

Volkerball posted:

So much for opposing sectarianism and foreign influence.

Volkerball posted:

Crowsbeak posted:

Good to see some here can see that in order to bake a cake you need to break some eggs.

lollontee posted:

lmao


if you have a parliament, you do kinda need a majority to form a government. What do your eggs stand for here?

Volkerball posted:

And if you oppose the people who form the government then you become the opposition!

lollontee posted:

The gently caress are you on about. You're just mad that the Iraqi people didn't vote for the imperialist backed parties I think

lollontee posted:

if you have a parliament, you do kinda need a majority to form a government. What do your eggs stand for here?

Volkerball posted:

I'm on about like, what happened in the Iraqi elections. Maybe you should read an article or two on the subject before you start pretending to be an expert.

lollontee posted:

Volkerball posted:

can you name one of these ~imperialist backed parties~ i probably support

lollontee posted:

Sure, soon as you tell us all how al-Sadr forming a government with al-Amiri makes him a secterianist in the pocket of Iran or whatever you were pretending to be an experet on

Volkerball posted:

dude im the best experet on secterianists in this whole forum lol

Volkerball posted:

dude im the best experet on secterianists in this whole forum lol

Volkerball posted:

dude im the best experet on secterianists in this whole forum lol

CrazyLoon posted:

This really made me wonder how Iraq would look right now if the US imposed on it a two-party system, only for sunnis and shias. How much simpler that would be!

CrazyLoon posted:

And a lovely one in how parliamentary democracy actually works out in practice, at which you'd rather

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a party didn't get quite enough votes to form a government, so to avoid having no government and anarchy reigning (which seems to be what you're espousing to happen, as opposed to him being a *froths at the mouth* fuckin' FLIP FLOP), they get forced into forming a government with a party they fundamentally disagreed with during elections.

Does this hurt their public image? Absolutely, and somewhat rightfully if this was a big part of their campaign.

But is this worse than everyone deciding to 'stick to their principles' and wind up with no government in a country wracked with secretarianism and ISIS cells that are far from gone in the countryside? Seriously, that's what you'd prefer, oh expert on secretarianism?

Sinteres posted:

One of the reasons they're having such a hard time forming a government now is that the Kurds are pissed off about losing Kirkuk too. They were a fixture of earlier governments, because they were as interested in keeping the Sunni Arabs down as the Shia were.

Volkerball posted:

The PUK and KDP have both been pretty well lined up with Maliki and Ameri. The real issue with the Kurdish areas is how in the gently caress did the PUK and KDP sweep those elections after Kirkuk. A lot of fuckery went on up there. That's the epicenter of the original recount controversy.

quote:

US loses leverage to stop Yemen operation

As the US-backed coalition in Yemen appears ready to assault the rebel-held port city of Hodeidah, the entry point for most of the country’s aid, Congress is calling on the Pentagon to “use all available means” to stop the operation.

In a letter circulating in the House of Representatives and obtained by Al-Monitor, members of Congress “deeply alarmed” by the military action are asking US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to dissuade Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from attacking. UN officials worry the assault could put as many as 250,000 lives at risk.

The Pentagon has already been scrutinized by lawmakers for refueling Saudi and UAE jets in the yearslong conflict and deploying US special forces troops to dismantle Iran-backed missile launchers near Yemen’s northern border without seeking congressional authorization. Al-Monitor reported in November that US refueling support to the coalition more than doubled over the last year.

“We urge you to use all available means to avert a catastrophic military assault on Yemen’s major port city of Hodeida by the Saudi-led coalition, and to present Congress with immediate clarification regarding the full scope of US military involvement in that conflict,” reads the letter spearheaded by Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., which has been signed by seven members of Congress. “We remind you that three years into the conflict, active US participation in Saudi-led hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis has never been authorized by Congress, in violation of the Constitution.”

Yet fierce fighting on the ground may be moving too fast for the United States to stop it. Over the weekend, as the UN’s top Yemen mediator Martin Griffiths tried to talk the Houthis into peacefully turning over the port, Saudi-backed troops clashed with the rebels just miles from the city, with most UN and nongovernmental organization workers quickly hustled out to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.

By late today, key lawmakers had begun losing faith in US efforts to convince Saudi and UAE military officials to stop the assault, after The Wall Street Journal reported that the UN’s shuttle diplomacy failed to move UAE officials and that the Donald Trump administration had given the operation “a blinking yellow light.”

“More evidence the Yemen War is spiraling,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a tweet. “The US has begged Saudi/UAE coalition not to attack the humanitarian aid port of Hudaydah. New reports suggest they have refused our plea, are readying an assault. Result could be catastrophic.”

Despite the uptick in US refueling, military experts say the UAE is less dependent on the Pentagon for operations in Hodeidah. Once envisioned as an Emirati-led amphibious assault needing advanced US boats to navigate Red Sea minefields laid by Iran, the 45,000-strong force of Yemeni troops has instead moved along the coast in a two-month offensive to reach Hodeidah with refueling support from new helicopter bases.

“It’s a waste of time to point blank stop this operation without offering an alternative,” said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute. “If somebody told the US in 2003, don’t go to Baghdad, what would we have said?”

The letter comes as Congress has been increasingly frustrated in recent months by perceptions that the Trump administration is overriding legislative authority to expand US participation in the Yemen war. In May, Reuters reported that Congress is reviewing the sale of more than 120,000 precision-guided munitions that will be used in the conflict, laying the groundwork for a potential fight on the Senate floor.

‘We are concerned that in the midst of a Senate effort to exercise its constitutional authority to end unauthorized hostilities — including U.S. targeting and refueling assistance for Saudi-led airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthis — the Pentagon may have concealed key information from members of Congress regarding the full extent of on-the-ground U.S. military participation in the Saudi coalition-led war,” the letter adds.

UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock told reporters today that 70 percent of Yemen’s imported food, fuel, and medicines come through Hodeidah. More than 22 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in the famine-wracked country.

Squalid posted:

What do you guys think the Saudis end plan is in Yemen because I really have to stretch my imagination to come up with an outcome that isn't a disastrous embarrassment.

I can't imagine why any nation would want to be a party to this farce

Torrannor posted:

Also, please imagine me posting that huge ironicat gif for the sentence "If somebody told the US in 2003, don’t go to Baghdad, what would we have said?"

Torrannor posted:

Back to the situation in Yemen:

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/06/us-loses-leverage-stop-yemen-hodeidah-operation.html#ixzz5IDrXXiYx


Hmm yes, the US surely has no leverage to dissuade the attack. Like stopping all assistance in refueling the other operations, supplying arms and munitions, providing targeting data etc. If it's true that they "begged" the Coalition not to attack Hodeida, and they flat out refused, then that's pretty damning how much the US gets taken advantage of by it's "partners" in the ME. I think it's more likely that the Saudis and co. knew they still had Trump's support and could simply ignore state department/pentagon attempts to dissuade them from attacking.

Also, please imagine me posting that huge ironicat gif for the sentence "If somebody told the US in 2003, don’t go to Baghdad, what would we have said?"

Squalid posted:

What do you guys think the Saudis end plan is in Yemen because I really have to stretch my imagination to come up with an outcome that isn't a disastrous embarrassment.

Squalid posted:

I can't imagine why any nation would want to be a party to this farce

Retarded Goatee posted:

The Houthis / Yemeni army claims to have hit a coalition barge at sea.

HorrificExistence posted:

Seems they hit and sunk a UAE corvette with an anti-ship missile.

Sauds seem to have done a large scale para operation, despite naval issues.


Livestreaming POV of your air-assualt, I love 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN0Dg2RNakw

HorrificExistence posted:

Seems they hit and sunk a UAE corvette with an anti-ship missile.

guidoanselmi posted:

I'm curious what the national composition of the attacking forces is...are these UAE & Saudi nationals acting together in an invasion force??

Squalid posted:

Supposed to be mostly Yemeni militia, like most operations in the south. Saudi soldiers typically stick to the north along the border and have had a limited presence in the south. Sudan has had a significant number of troops operating near Hodeidah but I don't know if they are participating in this attack. pro-government militias much prefer to work under the UAE, because unlike the Saudis, they reliably pay their salaries.

edit: articles about the offensive include a lot of pictures of Sudanese, so they are probably playing a big role. Most of the articles describe the coalition aligned militias as "UAE-backed," which means a lot of them are probably anti-Hadi southern separatists.

Count Roland posted:

Link?

Count Roland posted:

I read (somewhere) that southern separatists are playing a big role.

KSA doesn't reliably pay fighter salaries? How is that possible for a country made of money?

guidoanselmi posted:

Ultimately to install their TBD puppet in the manner of:

1) Kill Houthis
2) ???
3) Install puppet of a rubble nation with no institutions or infrastructure
4) ???...???
5) Profit (in political capital from the success and stability of the new government)