|
Yeah considering Johnson is making spending deals with little fuss it makes sense to bail him out. McCarthy had no such argument.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Misunderstood posted:Yeah considering Johnson is making spending deals with little fuss it makes sense to bail him out. McCarthy had no such argument. McCarthy also spent years being an untrustworthy snake. Johnson, as a tabula rasa, has some leeway since he has yet to back out of any agreement with democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say the issue is complicated. I doubt the Houthis are acting out of desire to show support for Palestine and there have been some pretty good reasons presented in this thread to doubt that. It's important to not divide the entire world and it's entire ideologies into pro and anti genocide in the face of Israel's pogrom. Some people are just opportunists. Some people are going to be pro-genocide in the opposite direction. Some people just lie. "They oppose Israel, therefore, they are the good guys" is not necessarily a winning philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Joe Biden's foreign policy decisions are distracting us from Communist China! Taiwan now has proper leadership. We need to protect our silicon.
Nonsense fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
I think you can recognize that the houthis are not necessarily good people while still opposing the US military's choice to attack them
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Aztec Galactus posted:I think you can recognize that the houthis are not necessarily good people while still opposing the US military's choice to attack them Help me understand this. Why shouldn't the US attack belligerents who are attacking civilian ships and putting people's lives at risk? I'm not talking about the argument of getting Congressional approval, just the merits of attacking an aggressor to hamper their ability to launch these strikes. How do you stop them otherwise? Or do you just let them continue? Didn't the US keep issuing warnings for months now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Guaranteeing the safety of civilian ship traffic is just about the least controversial mission the US has
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
small butter posted:Help me understand this. Why shouldn't the US attack belligerents who are attacking civilian ships and putting people's lives at risk? I'm not talking about the argument of getting Congressional approval, just the merits of attacking an aggressor to hamper their ability to launch these strikes. How do you stop them otherwise? Or do you just let them continue? Didn't the US keep issuing warnings for months now? You put pressure on Israel to stop the genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Guaranteeing the safety of civilian ship traffic is just about the least controversial mission the US has Look I am going to keep robbing gas stations until America ceases its support of genocide What
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:You put pressure on Israel to stop the genocide. How many russian (and 3rd party) ships can we sink? I'd really love to sink some.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:You put pressure on Israel to stop the genocide. This doesn't do that anymore than destroying windows of small business owners in a completely different country would for police brutality in the US? The main legitimate purpose for the USN is exactly this, protecting the sea lanes from piracy and also by coincidence the very first war America declared, when they wiped out the Barbary Pirates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:You put pressure on Israel to stop the genocide. How does that actually fix the problem? (hint: It doesn't, except in your imagination)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
small butter posted:Help me understand this. Why shouldn't the US attack belligerents who are attacking civilian ships and putting people's lives at risk? I'm not talking about the argument of getting Congressional approval, just the merits of attacking an aggressor to hamper their ability to launch these strikes. How do you stop them otherwise? Or do you just let them continue? Didn't the US keep issuing warnings for months now? They shouldn't do it because these attacks will do nothing to dissuade Ansarallah but in fact cause an even greater reaction, as the state dept themselves noted in a press release These bombings in fact seem singularly useless for anything but to do something for the sake of doing something. The us absolutely is not going to invade Yemen, and lobbing missiles back and forth is going to do nothing to lower shipping insurance. So the US should not do these actions because they're useless to resolve the conflict
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
small butter posted:Help me understand this. Why shouldn't the US attack belligerents who are attacking civilian ships and putting people's lives at risk? I'm not talking about the argument of getting Congressional approval, just the merits of attacking an aggressor to hamper their ability to launch these strikes. How do you stop them otherwise? Or do you just let them continue? Didn't the US keep issuing warnings for months now? Well, you’re not looking at it with the right perspective. If you read more theory and really understand the historical dialectic to unpack all the contradictions underpinning the system of social relations in the capitalist west, you’ll see that, actually, the right choice in any foreign policy decision is the one that the U.S. did not make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
"We should send troops to stop all this genociding!" Jesus loving christ, some people conveniently forget our terrible history with interventionist military action whenever the next one comes along. It's like there's a large portion of our media dedicated to Forever War...huh. SpeakSlow fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:They shouldn't do it because these attacks will do nothing to dissuade Ansarallah but in fact cause an even greater reaction, as the state dept themselves noted in a press release By this argument shouldn't Hamas not lob rockets at Israel because it doesn't in actuality put pressure on Israel to stop its actions? I think it's an extremely dubious claim, to suggest that the US intervene here won't do anything to increase confidence in the safety of the shipping lanes through one of the most important of the world's trade routes. SpeakSlow posted:"We should send troops to stop all this genociding!" Who are you referring to, or which news source is suggesting this? But the fact is, the US has the right to intervene in such matters, and it is in fact very good for the whole world that they do so, because the functioning of the world's economy depends on the US Navy doing its job. Likewise not every intervention has ended in tragedy, the US's intervening helped contain the worst excesses of ISIS for example and prevented Iraq from falling to them. Likewise the threat of US intervention (albeit its very ambiguous as threats go) keeps China from invading Taiwan and so on. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How many russian (and 3rd party) ships can we sink? I'd really love to sink some. Wait never mind, we don't have to. The Houthis are extremely blessed it turns out quote:Houthis mistakenly target tanker carrying Russian oil, security firm says we should give them some more missiles
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
Even China is like, "Hey guys, please don't interfere with trade please."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Likewise not every intervention has ended in tragedy, the US's intervening helped contain the worst excesses of ISIS for example and prevented Iraq from falling to them. Likewise the threat of US intervention (albeit its very ambiguous as threats go) keeps China from invading Taiwan and so on. To add to this list, the US intervention in the Balkans in '95 and '99.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
I think there is plenty of reason to believe that the attacks will be effective. They are not going to destroy the Houthis, but if you neutralize their ability to project force outside of Yemen then you are going to do a lot to restore faith in the channel. And, like, if somebody blows up a bunch of your missile launch sites, it is going to gently caress with your ability to launch missiles. It's not a one and done thing; they will have to enforce the security of the channel for a while, probably. But that's fine. We give them $800 billion a year. I also have to assume the Houthi pirate navy is, if not completely sunk already, well on its way. But whether you think it's effective or not, to call the acts "unquestionably evil" is downright hilarious when even the Houthis have only said that all that the US did so far was destroy some of their equipment and kill five of their murderous terrorist personnel. No civilians have been harmed. I'm spitballing a bit, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that the Houthis can't even operate out of urban areas in southern Yemen, because they are the controlling force in the north, not the south, and would have a lot more trouble embedding themselves in the cities when the pro-Saudi Qatari force has so much power. The operations do not seem to be putting civilians in much danger, and especially not as much as civilians are in danger from the Houthis themselves. Like... loving with international trade isn't just making "number go down." When economies suffer, people die. The Houthis are putting more lives at risk with their actions than the US possibly could striking back. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Is there any reason to question the supremacy of the US Navy, given the limited capacity of guerrilla tactics operating in the by-definition incredibly open space of the ocean? Even only the most advanced militaries can use stealth on it, and obviously we have a great capacity to counter that, and the entire world is outgunned by us. Maybe I'm missing some weakness? I wonder if faith in the Navy was part of the reason Lai was able to win in Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
I don't see how any of this is going to lead to that area being safer for shipping in the near term. I guess eventually they will make it so that the Houthis can't regularly attack shipping, but I don't see how it will be permanently made safe unless we park multiple carrier groups there indefinitely. Would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Biden to grow a pair and tell Bibi that he has to stop bombing Gaza.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't see how any of this is going to lead to that area being safer for shipping in the near term. I guess eventually they will make it so that the Houthis can't regularly attack shipping, but I don't see how it will be permanently made safe unless we park multiple carrier groups there indefinitely. Houthis were doing this before the Gaza war too. They'll keep doing it unless they're prevented from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't see how any of this is going to lead to that area being safer for shipping in the near term. I guess eventually they will make it so that the Houthis can't regularly attack shipping, but I don't see how it will be permanently made safe unless we park multiple carrier groups there indefinitely. The attacks on shipping have nothing to do with the war. The US navy deploying to the region (along with other nations) is generally the tried and true method to stop piracy. Piracy has always been an ongoing concern all over the world by the major shipping lanes; and waxes and wanes depending on the amount of resources dedicated to combating them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Likewise not every intervention has ended in tragedy, the US's intervening helped contain the worst excesses of ISIS for example and prevented Iraq from falling to them. The US conquering Iraq created ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't see how any of this is going to lead to that area being safer for shipping in the near term. I guess eventually they will make it so that the Houthis can't regularly attack shipping, but I don't see how it will be permanently made safe unless we park multiple carrier groups there indefinitely. They already park carrier groups out there indefinitely. That’s kind of their point. You don’t need multiple ones. To provide picketing and conducting strike on land-based missile platforms requires maybe an addition CRUDES platform or two. Not a full CSG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The US conquering Iraq created ISIS. And? The argument here isn't that every US-led or enabled intervention is uniformly and absolutely good with no ill effects; but that saying every US intervention is invariably bad is well, a reductionist take lacking nuance because some interventions were actually good. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was bad, but the one in 1991 to liberate Kuwait was good; because the 1991 GW in a way enabled the OIF to happen mean its bad? No. That would be silly. The fact is it would've been worse for the US to have done nothing; ISIS needed to be stopped and it basically successfully was and Iraq despite the earlier errors is basically a functioning state today. Countries do all sorts of bad things when Big Countries do Big Country Things but we also don't want them to NOT do Big Country Things, only do them better. In short sometimes bad things happen, this doesn't mean we should prefer nothing to ever happen, and allow any number of unimaginable horrors to beset people around the world, under the false idea that it's unacceptable for some bad things we can't predict to happen. And additionally the problem is that the claim "US interventions are always bad" just lacks any critical thought or material analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
Like I said "stop all that genocidin!" shouted over a PA from inside an armored vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:Like I said "stop all that genocidin!" shouted over a PA from inside an armored vehicle. Can you elaborate on which argument this in reference to, or what point you're trying to make? What's your position that you're trying to say or support? I think everyone here agrees genocide is bad so I'm not sure what this is about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Can you elaborate on which argument this in reference to, or what point you're trying to make? What's your position that you're trying to say or support? I think everyone here agrees genocide is bad so I'm not sure what this is about. Easy enough. Was does intervention in the current conflict look like? How do we get in and out without another quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan? What part of "American military intervention doesn't work" hasn't made itself clear over the last century?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:You put pressure on Israel to stop the genocide. What is the source of the claim that the Houthi attacks, which started in 2014, have anything to do with Gaza? A big flaming stink posted:They shouldn't do it because these attacks will do nothing to dissuade Ansarallah but in fact cause an even greater reaction, as the state dept themselves noted in a press release You think that taking out their radar and weapons systems won't make them stop or severely curtail their attacks by virtue of losing equipment to do these attacks? I don't think that invading Yemen is at all necessary to stop these attacks. At some point, it becomes too damaging to keep shooting missiles at ships if it ends up the destroying the equipment that you need to, you know, win a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:Easy enough. Was does intervention in the current conflict look like? How do we get in and out without another quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan? What are you talking about? You understand that America can intervene in ways that don't involve sending ground troops into a hostile region right? Additionally I believe I responded to your second point in my previous post which I don't think you've responded to, could you care to respond to the argument?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
We could have at least attempted some kind of diplomacy with the Houthis rather than bombing the hell out of them
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We could have at least attempted some kind of diplomacy with the Houthis rather than bombing the hell out of them Weren't the Houthis warned numerous times that they needed to knock their poo poo off or face consequences?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
It’s amazing that we can have any expectation that Ansar Allah would be cowed by some aerial strikes. They’ve had the shot bombed out of them for years and are stronger than ever.Madkal posted:Weren't the Houthis warned numerous times that they needed to knock their poo poo off or face consequences?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
What does diplomacy with the Houthis look like, though? Recognizing them as the government of Yemen? Even if this was about Israel-Palestine, it's pretty clear that the US could have done nothing about an asymmetrical Israeli counterstrike by their democratically elected government given that Oct 7 was the worst attack on Jews since WW2 short of military intervention, and at this point, most of the deaths already happened even if Israel gets reigned in tomorrow. I just don't understand the non-military solutions being posited by anyone. Missiles are getting fired at civilian (and sometimes military) ships. A response that disrupts their ability to do so seems like the only option. cat botherer posted:It would be much easier to tell Bibi to knock his poo poo off, but apparently that’s not an option for Biden. Again, do you or anyone else have any evidence for the claim that the Houthis are attacking because of Palestine? small butter fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
I mean, bravo on the neoliberal cosplay. It's just funny how it all dovetails so...obviously. "Sadly, we have no other choice..." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:51
|
|
|
The UN tried diplomacy, I'm sure that'll workquote:UN Security Council demands Houthis stop Red Sea attacks cat botherer posted:It’s amazing that we can have any expectation that Ansar Allah would be cowed by some aerial strikes. They’ve had the shot bombed out of them for years and are stronger than ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:I mean, bravo on the neoliberal cosplay. It's just funny how it all dovetails so...obviously. So do you have an answer or not? What kinds of terms do you think that the Houthis are looking for? And why do you think that aggressors deserve negotiation and not a response in kind?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:I mean, bravo on the neoliberal cosplay. It's just funny how it all dovetails so...obviously. What are you even talking about? Which intervention are you trying to shame 'neoliberals' about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:59
|
|