|
Ships that do not want to be attacked by the Houthi forces can simply not enter their waters without their consent and/or economically support their enemies. There's a reason the Houthis are still referred to as 'rebels' and terrorists' despite being the defacto gov't of Yemen. Either treat with them country to country and negotiate trade through their legal waters or go to war with them. Complaining that your shipping is being attacked when you're ignoring their legal instructions is pretty rich. I think I remember a certain flotilla that was boarded and Turkish citizens shot to death in Gazan waters by a military enforcing a blockade.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:And what exactly do you consider their "legal waters"? Because unless you are counting everything in the straight from shore to shore, the vast majority of the ship they've attacked where not in their territorial waters. Even less so if we don't count costal regions they don't control. ok - while the US and other countries can determine an EEZ of 200 miles - Yemen (who recently forced Saudi and US forces into ending their air war against them) isn't permitted to control / interdict / warn away global shipping from approaching within 20 miles of it's shores? The tankers attacked were on course to, or had already, violated their announced economic blockade of the Israeli red sea port. Those that decided to run the blockade were attacked. Not saying that the Houthis are right - but if the US / World Powers want unlimited right to ship their goods past a belligerent they should declare war on them and invade. Otherwise they should be treating with Yemen's government to negotiate passage of goods that serve their interests. There are no 'innocent civilians' that are running an economic blockade - they are smugglers / enemy vessels and in many wars they are considered fair targets.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 12:39
|
|
|
Xakura posted:EEZ governs resource extraction, not ship passage. Granted re: EEZ Sure, but I wouldn't call anyone brazenly still entering threat range 'innocent civilians' A lot of the framing of this thread is so weird - The Saudis and the US have not negotiated a full peace with Yemen so they can and have reopened hostilities - but to frame it as "Yemen bad" is wrong. It's a country enforcing an economic blockade on another to coerce them to change their present course of action. That the US/Western Powers are calling it terrorism is rich. Also - has anyone been hurt by the attacks?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:This is basically the case. Yemen is party to the UN conventions on the law of the seas which govern this sort of thing. A country that has signed this treaty isn't legally allowed to blockade trade routes and attack shipping. As far as I can tell, neither the Houthis or Americans are party to the UN Convention on the law of the seas. Calling this aggressive on the Houthi's part is fine. Framing it as criminal/terrorist behavior is another. Tangy Zizzle fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jan 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Blut posted:What term would you use to describe launching missiles at civilian crewed ships, boarding them, and taking civilian workers from uninvolved countries like the Philippines hostage at gun point, to then hold ransom? They've been clear that ships are prohibited from passing through the red sea to do business with Israel. Targeting merchant ships is a completely legitimate tactic during conflict. That the international system uses third party workers to move material through the red sea and throughout the world is unfortunate but those shipping companies will pay for the release of those civilians or the home countries of those people are free to negotiate with the Houthi government for their release. One thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that companies/captains are risking their crews and cargos against their bottom lines because they haven't wised up to the fact that a naval blockade doesn't necessarily anymore require a navy. Yemen whether anyone likes it or not, has been clear in their expectations and warnings.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:sooooo now its okay to bomb innocent third parties if it could even vaguely impact your enemy? I didn't say it was nice or ok but it's not terrorism - if anyone wanted them to stop they would negotiate with them?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its been discussed at length in this thread over the past two pages exactly why whats happening is very much not "a completely legitimate tactic" by any definition of international laws and norms going back hundreds of years. 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
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I would probably argue if pressed that the Houthis (as they currently exist) are a product of the unrelenting hostility towards them by the Saudis and the West. Assassinations, air campaigns, a brutal civil war - these do not turn a loose conglomerate of muslim (both moderate and extreme) tribes and communities into nice people. if you want to empower strongmen you bomb the poo poo out of them and weaken the social infrastructure of their country until the people there have no option but to support the guys in pickup trucks with machine guns it takes years and years of upward mobility, improving conditions, safety and security, before strong men become too fat and lazy to fight and start ceding control to civilian organizations
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Ankara is in the Middle East, yeah? The US approved the sale of a bunch of F-16s to Turkey yesterday, in response to approving Sweden for NATO. Surprisingly I didn't really see much news coverage of it, or at least not front page. it's funny that a day AFTER they finally finished wringing any political leverage out of Ankara about these F16s they go and sell a whack of F35s to Greece, plus 'donate' a bunch of weaponry to them
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Does anyone have an explanation or possible explanation for why the US/Allies haven't offered to pay the Houthis off? It must be costing hundreds of millions of bucks a week to fire all those interceptors, keep the planes in the air, fuels the ships, feed the sailors, etc - not to mention the cost of shipping insurance going through the roof. I'm sure that offering to establish / rebuild a Yemeni port, feeding the Yemeni people, and / or helping develop their maritime assets would galvanize the Houthi gov't to deal. Hell, even direct cash would start to provide Yemen resources that will help them become independent from Iranian aid / build a stable political foundation to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
They're also now charging tolls to European shipping, and it's bankrolling their government https://shebaintelligence.uk/european-ships-pay-money-to-sail-safely-in-red-sea-off-yemen quote:A Western diplomatic source told Sheba Intelligence that European companies began about a month ago paying money to the Ansar Allah (Houthi) group in return for the safe passage of their ships in the Red Sea. The source seems sus but imo it was only a matter of time until people starting paying off the Houthis for slightly less than their costs to ship things around the Cape
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 20:01
|
|