|
Deteriorata posted:If you want to sit at the big table with the adults, you have to act like one. Tell that to everyone sitting at the table rooting for genocide lol who's acting like an adult in this situation?
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:Tell that to everyone sitting at the table rooting for genocide lol who's acting like an adult in this situation? Certainly not the one lobbing missiles at unarmed merchant ships.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Certainly not the one lobbing missiles at unarmed merchant ships. Is there anyone not backing the genocide of an entire people who can negotiate with them? Where are the adults at the table?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:Is there anyone not backing the genocide of an entire people who can negotiate with them? Where are the adults at the table? Clearly its China. Don't bring up some Adrian Zenz sourced satellite imagery of a community college dorm under construction and convince me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Why should they? The west warned them and they refused to stop. By your own reasoning the US and Britain have every right to bombard and even starve them with a blockade until they give up. The Houthis aren't crying about the strikes, if anything the Saudis as the closest neighbor are the ones most pissed at the US and Britain. If the US and other countries want to use this Houthi conflict as a way to spend billions on missile strikes, naval deployments, hangar time on it's fighters, etc - they are clearly welcome to do so - it's clear the Houthis (and Iran) are spending way less money and are 'fixing' western Naval assets in an area that they wouldn't normally be. I'm suggesting that mature thoughtful international actors would treat with Iran and the Houthis, listen to their concerns and demands, and negotiate, instead of costing themselves a lot of money and raising inflation across the western world. Additional edit - The Saudis and the US decided on purpose not to end their conflict with the Houthis - they allowed for a ceasefire but not a political settlement and this is one of the ramifications of that. A state actor (Houthis) are enforcing a blockade by warning off US and Israeli shipping, and attacking those ships that are not adhering to their demands. Adults in the room = anyone willing to negotiate instead of use violence, so far nobody in the conflict except for the shipping companies that have decided to move their material elswhere. Tangy Zizzle fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:16
|
|
|
Nothing like establishing a norm that you will respond to aggression by rewarding the opposing party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Nothing like establishing a norm that you will respond to aggression by rewarding the opposing party. you mean - recognizing that an opposing party, that you were previously bombing, has the ability to hurt you in a way that you hadn't expected and find unacceptable and instead of negotiating from there you let it create conditions/establishing even worse conditions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
No, I wrote what I meant. I think your take on this topic is tortured and delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:norms going back hundreds of years hasn't really worked out for Yemen. I think international organizations and foreign belligerents need to wake up and start sending diplomats instead of missile strikes I mean, why would they? If lobbing missiles into a shipping lane gets you negotiations for some concession then everyone starts doing it. Maybe the RSF start launching poo poo into the Red Sea, or militants in Somalia start up piracy again. Openly responding with anything other than force is typically seen as weakness and encouragement for other opportunists. That being said, I bet there are negotiations happening quietly. The Saudis' have been negotiating a peace deal with the Houthis to end their awful war in the region, so maybe via Saudi intermediaries. If they Houthis are smart they'll try to parlay this influence into recognition of their government. But attacking shipping is a very poor way to make friends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:No, I wrote what I meant. I think your take on this topic is tortured and delusional. Let me spell it out for you - 1 - America has been calling the shots in the middle east for a long time, but lately that has changed with the proliferation of antiship / long range guided and unguided missile proliferation (the red sea, Iranian and Iraqi militia attacks on military bases, etc) 2 - America and it's allies do not have a credible way to stop these threats other than spending billions *more* than their adversaries on interceptors, on direct strikes against targets (often ineffective) or land invasion. 3 - America is unwilling to invade, and seemingly happy at the current time to spend the money on interceptors and direct strikes, neither of which are keeping shipping from redirecting away from the Red Sea. 4 - With shipping leaving the red sea, it is becoming more and more clear every day that America is losing credibility / influence in the region. With them unable to muzzle Israel and keep a lid on the attacks in Iraq things are getting worse. 4 - There seems to be no political desire at this time to negotiate or answer to Houthi demands regarding the Gaza genocide, which is understood to be an American enterprise almost as much as Israel's. If you think America negotiating with the Houthis, Iran, etc - or talking down Israel - is 'rewarding an opponent' - I think you're out to lunch. The whole reason America is in the region directing strikes against the Houthis in the first place is to appease their partners/interests worldwide and to maintain the appearance of power. It's clear America is weaker now than they were on October 6th and instead of negotiating from a position of power they're quickly losing all of their leverage. It's silly to complain about the evil Houthis and at the same time not shake your head at how stupid the reaction has been internationally. The Houthis wouldn't need Iran if they had a stable political settlement with their neighbors in the first place. The Americans are easily spending 100 times or more than their adversaries in this conflict and for what? As it stands, the Houthis haven't actually hurt anyone yet as far as I can tell. The US response has killed almost 100 people. Sounds a lot like the same ratio of Hamas vs Israel, a deliberate overreaction in order to project strength. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I mean, why would they? If lobbing missiles into a shipping lane gets you negotiations for some concession then everyone starts doing it. Maybe the RSF start launching poo poo into the Red Sea, or militants in Somalia start up piracy again. Openly responding with anything other than force is typically seen as weakness and encouragement for other opportunists. this is power projection 101 I think right? the ability to hurt your adversary to attain leverage? Why does America drone strike their adversaries at their whim? Because it's fun? Or to intimidate/force concessions from local actors. It's a derail but a strong international humanitarian and political response to RSF and Somalia would do a lot to improve material conditions in the region? Treating locals as partners investing in peace and security and prosperity instead of adversaries to overcome and exploit might be a good change of pace
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:Let me spell it out for you - In a vacuum I think this might be more compelling, but with the region in the brink of war the US has good reason to move additional military assets in to bolster their and their allies position while also demonstrating that they won't be cowed by the risk of asymmetrical conflict. Frankly the US and their allies can afford to spend billions more than their opponents on bolstering their existing military assets in the region. I wouldn't expect any significant negotiations about the houthis to take place until after tensions in the region have resolved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:In a vacuum I think this might be more compelling, but with the region in the brink of war the US has good reason to move additional military assets in to bolster their and their allies position while also demonstrating that they won't be cowed by the risk of asymmetrical conflict. The US has other areas I'm sure they would prefer their forces to be - including the Persian gulf. The US and allies can afford *for now* to spend that money, but this is step two in an escalating process (step one was missile attacks against US bases in Iraq and Syria) that is costing billions and taking much needed interceptor ammunition away from other areas.(Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan) By that logic, with the US response so far being ineffectual, and with the red sea effectively closed, there's no point in having any forces there at all is there? The US is saying 'you are terrorists and attacking civilian ships so we will show up and protect them and reach you a lesson' and failing in both of those objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:taking much needed interceptor ammunition away from other areas.(Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan) These are not interchangable with other systems, and are not land-based - they are not usable in the Ukraine War (it would be a big help if they could, but they are naval SAMs). I also don't think Israel uses them. I'm not sure about Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
The patriot missiles they are using to protect bases in Iraq certainly fit. The SM-1s and SM-2s and jet launched missiles to intercept drones aren't cheap on their own and certainly don't grow on trees either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:56
|
|
|
Tigey posted:I don't think this part of your argument is actually true. The interceptor missiles they are firing will be various VLS launched 'Standard-series' SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
Re territorial waters chat. There's a YouTuber called Sacred Cow Shipyard I've been watching for some time. He's a gamer and most of his content is talking about spaceships in video games and movies BUT he does also sometimes do content based on real life scenarios. He has a US navy background and just posted a few hours ago a video talking about the differences in territorial waters, contiguous zones, EEZ's etc which I found informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3NT7ep6wiQ Caveat. You might find his YouTube gimmick annoying but I found the vid genuinely interesting and the gimmick doesn't feature much in this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:The US has other areas I'm sure they would prefer their forces to be - including the Persian gulf. Just because it didn't stop them immediately doesn't mean it won't eventually. I can't of course assess this without having all the secret intel but Iranian resources are obviously not infinite, and they need them to support their genocide of Ukrainians and all the other poo poo they're stirring in the region. Even if it's not possible to fully shut them down, it's probably still a good idea to increase the cost to the attackers as much as possible. We can't have a precedent where you can just shoot missiles at passing ships and that just shuts down shipping for good with zero consequences to you. Finally, if you're so inclined, this still leaves the room open for negotiations/"diplomacy". Everyone can now stop shooting missiles at each other and declare success!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The coalition can afford it more than Iran can afford to keep it going. It is also worth it if does work and opens up shipping. I wont speculate on who can afford it more, but: 1 - Iran is the 'go first' actor here, and the US led 'coalition' is reacting - and spending millions of dollars to defend against attacks on a timeline they are not in control of. It's not even close in terms of expenditures, and if the Houthis have any size of stockpile of weapons, they can turn up the pressure with a wave of attacks here and there at whim - but the US will need to have resources to defend against wave attacks on standby at all times. If the US is willing to guard empty shipping lanes forever they are welcome to do so I guess? Might be cheaper to invade once and get it over with, the slow burn will add up. 2 - Sure, increasing the cost of the attackers is one goal for sure - is it a metric of success? Can you say "well we made it trickier for the Houthis to achieve all of their goals, which they did anyways, but we spent a lot of money showing everyone how angry we are about it" 3 - The precedent of naval blockade is already set, it's an ancient one! The only way to stop it is to either destroy the blockading forces or to negotiate an end to it. 4 - I'm glad we've moved on from the 'wah wah they are shooting missiles at innocent shipping!' argument, and into something more reasonable like "a regional actor is imposing their rules on the territory that they can and the international community from a different hemisphere is shocked and mad about it" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:
There is no point in brining it up because your clearly a deluded ghoul who thinks the innocent ship crews have it coming. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:I wont speculate on who can afford it more, but:  As I said I don't have any intel on how many missiles they have but I find it hard to believe it's more than everyone else in the world can put together. It's not a trivial task but so what, that's literally what the navy is for. 2. Well it's also a mean of achieving the goal by making it untenable for them to continue these attacks. Because this poo poo costs them money and resources. But it also shows that if someone else wants to gently caress with ships, it'll cost them hundreds of blown up launch vehicles/facilities so they should probably think very hard about it. 3a. This is not a blockade. 3b. Their "blockading" forces are being destroyed 4. No we absolutely didn't move on from that "wah wah they are shooting missiles at innocent shipping!" because that's what they're doing. That was just imprecise wording. Look I get it, you really want the Houthis to "own" Israel and the west. If they have a beef with Israel, they can go start some poo poo with the IDF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:this is power projection 101 I think right? the ability to hurt your adversary to attain leverage? Why does America drone strike their adversaries at their whim? Because it's fun? Or to intimidate/force concessions from local actors. Yeah I agree with the first part. For examples of the US working with locals in the region see noted documentary Black Hawk Down. Sudan is a mess, I don't know what the US could do about that at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 22:00
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:There is no point in brining it up because your clearly a deluded ghoul who thinks the innocent ship crews have it coming. No ship crews have been hurt and anyone thinking about their own safety would be avoiding the area
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:1. You don't need to convince me to nuke Tehran first, they won't see that coming! Shipping is down by 45% and container rates have tripled due to the naval blockade. Call it whatever you want, it's clear you're just mashing buttons like a baby unwilling to concede that there is a change of operational reality in the area. America can't bomb it's way to a political settlement with Iran as much as you wish it could. State actors are not pirates or terrorists no matter what the US state department might declare. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:No ship crews have been hurt and anyone thinking about their own safety would be avoiding the area Counterpoint: The attacks are done with either the intent or acceptance of dead civilians. Failing to do something bad does not somehow make it not bad and the should cut it out. Also they are not, nore have they ever been the legal, accepted government of Yemen as much as you want that to be so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Counterpoint: The attacks are done with either the intent or acceptance of dead civilians. Failing to do something bad does not somehow make it not bad and the should cut it out. Not sure what you're trying to say here, they haven't hurt anyone, shipping is down 45% and container prices have tripled, sounds like they're doing great They are the gov't of Yemen in the sense that they operate as the gov't of Yemen and have fought and won a civil war for that right - not to mention defeating their neighbors (and the US) Why are you so focused on assigning a negative moral value to the blockade on the side of the Houthis? People die in conflicts and that often involves merchant shipping (see WW2 as an example). If you're upset that the balance of power is different in the area currently I understand, but Israel/the US have clear and obvious dominance in the 'evil' category in the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
The only reason no one has been hurt in the Houthis shipping attacks is dumb luck. Unless you think the Houthis are being supplied with some mega smart anti ship missiles that always know how to hit a ship to cause zero casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The only reason no one has been hurt in the Houthis shipping attacks is dumb luck. Unless you think the Houthis are being supplied with some mega smart anti ship missiles that always know how to hit a ship to cause zero casualties. Risk of collateral damage to crew (mostly fighting age males) is well below accepted parameters for military operations by western countries
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:No ship crews have been hurt and anyone thinking about their own safety would be avoiding the area I would love to see a source for this. No reported deaths is a long ways away from no one hurt. Especially from the complete lack of updates regarding any hostages, AFAIK
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:37
|
|
|
I'm not saying that they haven't meant to hurt anyone, I'm simply saying that NO ONE has been hurt! It's an excellent opportunity for the US and Saudi Arabia to sign lasting peace accords with Yemen before any more blood can be spillled!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I would love to see a source for this. No reported deaths is a long ways away from no one hurt. Especially from the complete lack of updates regarding any hostages, AFAIK absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all that but I feel like if there had been any deaths it would have been bigger news the two navy seals that died could I guess get pinned on the Houthis even though they died interdicting an Iranian ship I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all that but I feel like if there had been any deaths it would have been bigger news You do understand there’s a difference between inflicting harm and inflicting death, right? You made a bold claim, I’m just asking for evidence of this claim
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
Tangy Zizzle posted:I'm not saying that they haven't meant to hurt anyone, I'm simply saying that NO ONE has been hurt! This is really not a strong argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This is really not a strong argument. It's a great metric, not an argument - it's certainly less than the confirmed deaths that the houthis have suffered in retaliation. As far as an escalatory tactic goes, it's fortunate that it hasn't gotten worse..
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 23:53
|
|
|
Every missile fired is attempted manslaughter against the entire crew of each ship. So that's hundreds of civilians they've very deliberately put in the path of a weapon designed to inflict mass death. Also each missile risks causing an ecological disaster should any of these ships leak fuel or spill their contents into the sea. No one has to have died for it to be a very serious crime worth responding to with lethal force since the Houthis are A: using lethal force themselves and B: showing no signs of stopping their attacks. If a mass shooter unloaded 1000 rounds into a busy mall but didn't manage to kill anyone cause his aim sucked and/or people got to cover in time, no one would bat an eye when police shoot him dead. The intent of the shooter and the risk are enough that on both a legal and practical level, lethal response is necessary. There's more than enough room to critique the US and their allies in this for who/what they are targeting, how they helped create this situation, and their apparent lack of achievable goals in their response. I'd suggest focusing on that rather than trying to squint hard enough to find any justification for what the Houthis are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
If this jumps commiserate with freight rates, and remains there, 21st century wars will be rounding errors. I think geography will keep that from happening anywhere but Djibouti.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 09:12
|
|
|
It's also worth mentioning that the Houthi shipping attacks are adding to the misery in Sudan. "For crisis-stricken Sudan, the Red Sea is the sole point of entry for aid, almost none of which has reached the 24.8m people in need of it since the [Houthi missile strikes] began."; https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/18/the-middle-east-faces-economic-chaos Lebanon and Jordan are being hosed by Israel, Sudan and Jordan are being hosed by the Houthis. Europeans are paying a few euros more and waiting a couple days longer for their Japanese cars. Israel has other unaffected ports -- and anyway Eilat is not a major port. Jordan and Sudan do not have non-Red Sea ports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 12:46
|
|
|
Cool, the Houthis can also end the war in Sudan. World Peace is in their hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Nothing like establishing a norm that you will respond to aggression by rewarding the opposing party. This raises an interesting question. If the alternative to negotiation is an ineffective show of force, which is the better option? If memory serves, bombing the Houthis is an approach that's been tried previously and wasn't particularly effective. So which makes the US and their allies look worse, negotiating or bombing to no effect?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Stringent posted:This raises an interesting question. If the alternative to negotiation is an ineffective show of force, which is the better option? If memory serves, bombing the Houthis is an approach that's been tried previously and wasn't particularly effective. So which makes the US and their allies look worse, negotiating or bombing to no effect? Depends on what your goals are. Permanently displacing and annexing Houthi territory? Absolutely ineffective. Temporarily degrading capabilities? Questionable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 07:08
|
|
