I know there are some people here who can speak more to the wider implications of the civil war here. It's a very interesting (and scary) situation. We are providing at least oversight of the Saudi-led Sunni war effort against the Iranian-backed Shia, at the same time that we're providing airstrikes in support of the Iranian-backed Shia militias trying to dislodge ISIS from Tikrit. Anyway for those who don't know, this is the second time in half a century that Yemen has been the site of a proxy war. Previously it had been largely a cold war conflict, pitting the semi-secular socialist vision of Nasser and his progeny against a Western and Saudi-backed royalist faction. This time the sides are more clearly delineated as Sunni and Shia. But the implications for the US are significant. Our ostensible allies in one conflict are our adversaries in the other, and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Troubling times.
About time.
I can't help but take note all the secular muslim govts have been overthrown or hit hard by civil unrest or war(Yemen,Egypt,Libya,Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria,Tunisia,Nigeria,Lebanon,Mali,Thiopia, Somalia, trouble brewing in Jordan and Turkey) but the Monarchies seem to be doing just fine,
for now.I don't think that's gonna last fot long, though, and when the first one goes, the rest are gonna follow real fast, with an awful lot of expensive western hardware that the Sauds and Omanis and Qataris, and the UAE paid top dollar for falling into either the hands of ISIS, or likely as not, the Iranians, who are still flying old F-14s.
''many, non Houthi, parts of the regular Army there have joined with the Houthis, against the perceived corrupt regime''
and that together, they are the enemy of, and have successfully attacked, Al-Queda, who are lined up with the Saudis on some level.
Not that I am any fan of Iran's regime, I am not.
But it was the Sunnis (whahabbis, or what have you) who attacked our homeland, not the Shiites nor the Iranians.
So - it is certainly complicated.
Our adversaries that we're negotiating a nuclear deal with as we speak...
NYTimes article the other day said some other regional countries were also supporting the Saudi efforts, I think with some limited bombing/surveillance flights.
Fine. Just do it right.
Fine. Just do it right.
I wouldn't count on that. Possible? Sure. But each of these regimes has vulnerabilities and I don't know if you'd want to provoke an open war with a state that is an old hand in the business of sponsoring terrorism. They would much prefer that we do it or the Israelis do it, no matter how much they'd huff and puff were the latter to happen.
Quote:
they would escalate this and attack Irans nukes by themselves at some point.
Fine. Just do it right.
I wouldn't count on that. Possible? Sure. But each of these regimes has vulnerabilities and I don't know if you'd want to provoke an open war with a state that is an old hand in the business of sponsoring terrorism. They would much prefer that we do it or the Israelis do it, no matter how much they'd huff and puff were the latter to happen.
Are you talking about the Sauds or Iranians? :)
''many, non Houthi, parts of the regular Army there have joined with the Houthis, against the perceived corrupt regime''
and that together, they are the enemy of, and have successfully attacked, Al-Queda, who are lined up with the Saudis on some level.
Not that I am any fan of Iran's regime, I am not.
But it was the Sunnis (whahabbis, or what have you) who attacked our homeland, not the Shiites nor the Iranians.
So - it is certainly complicated.
"Al-Queda, who are lined up with the Saudis on some level".
Starting with 911.
Bama it is really ideological now, moreso that tribal on the surface. This is Sunni vs Shia. Look at how the players are lining up. Saudi and the Gulf Sunnis vs Iran and its proxies.
This will not go well in the region. I just don't see how this can end up settled, because in the end it is tribal. There is no beholding to a central government. (guess I acknowledged your point to a degree.)
"The Iran that we're currently crippling with sanctions and periodically threatening to bomb is now our...I don't wanna say ally," Stewart said. "Battle buddy?"
At the same time, America supported a coalition led by Saudi Arabia striking Iranian-backed fighters in another Middle Eastern nation, Yemen.
"Holy shit!," Stewart said. "It took decades of destablizing conflict but we finally figured out how to wage a proxy war against ourselves."
"We cut out the middleman, and now we're just punching ourselves in the dick."
Lots not to like about the current regime but get used to the idea that they will be the strongest and most stable moslem entity in the middle east for the foreseeable future. And nothing they do or support is really any worse in the long run than the things our arab allies do or support.
Lots not to like about the current regime but get used to the idea that they will be the strongest and most stable moslem entity in the middle east for the foreseeable future. And nothing they do or support is really any worse in the long run than the things our arab allies do or support.
Our "allies" have supported terrorist groups comparable to Hamas/Hezbollah? Or the Assad regime which used chemical weapons on its own citizens?
Sudan has now joined the coalition. So now we have the us alligned with the monster saudis, the journalist murdering egyptians and genocide sudan against the houthis and former us dictaror ftiend ssaleh.
We also have bahrain the us backed monarch who saydi arabia invaded and murdered a bunch of secular democrats.
Perhaps its time for the us to stop allying with animals and take a new rout? An perhaps its time for peoplw to stop covrring up our complicity.
War breeds more terror. Period.since 9/11 we managed to turn a few scumbags in a cave to a region wide mess and terrorists groups galore.
This is the result of imperial policies.
Lots not to like about the current regime but get used to the idea that they will be the strongest and most stable moslem entity in the middle east for the foreseeable future. And nothing they do or support is really any worse in the long run than the things our arab allies do or support.
Yet despite the strong ethnic and nation-like history (I agree) there seems to be a real divide between the mullahs and a majority of the people. It's just that the Revolutionary Guard and basij did a more thorough job of supressing it since 2009 than other countries in the region.
Maybe we should reposition our naval fleet so Canada can sell to us, and only us! I think North America can run their economies on only North American oil. But Europe would implode.
We have ugly allies all over the world. Not just in oil producing states.
We have been supporting ugly allies before oil was relevant.
There are plenty of countries that dont support ugly allies yet live in the same world economy.
Having allies vecause the world economy relies on oil doesnt necistate sending them weapons designed to murder internal dissent.
The us is now the leading oil producer on the world with donestic oil companies currently slowing production to keep prices high.
Oil companies like conflicr in the middle east cause it 4aises prices.
60 years of us internal dicuments clearly explain support for middle east dictators is about control not acess.
Who are you decide that innocent peoples their lives are worth less then economic interests.
Now its end of story. You are a n8ce indoctrinated little fellow
+ 1
And so it shall be until we find something better.
We have ugly allies all over the world. Not just in oil producing states.
**So what so does everyone.
There are plenty of countries that dont support ugly allies yet live in the same world economy.
**Name them.
Having allies vecause the world economy relies on oil doesnt necistate sending them weapons designed to murder internal dissent.
**We don't control internal dissent and Russia, China, South Africa, Great Britain, France, etc all sell arms to those who wish to buy.
The US is now the leading oil producer on the world with donestic oil companies currently slowing production to keep prices high.
**Price of oil is still extremely low and the reason is to punish Russia and Iran by killing their sources of income and it also prevents Putin from shutting off natural gas to Europe because it is his only source of income (IMO).
Oil companies like conflicr in the middle east cause it 4aises prices.
**BS - if your wells are destroyed or interrupted you don't make money
60 years of us internal dicuments clearly explain support for middle east dictators is about control not acess.
** Could be correct
Who are you decide that innocent peoples their lives are worth less then economic interests.
** We all want World Peace. People have been killing each other for ever and innocents have been killed in the name of economic interests since before the ancient Egyptians.
To greg i dont get your problem with me its just my views.
To section thank you for responding. You ate wrong on the oil company aspect in my view.
As for the military aud nobody is near the us. You are right about russia and china but just cause others contribute to bloodshed doesnt make it right.
Read uo about our friends in angola who let their countries children vomit worms so they will die to minimize their population. An im not exagerating.
Have a good weekend all.
On one item though...sorry to break it to you but you do not understand the profit economic omits of oil exploration, or production or distribution. At all. As in ...at all. So to anyone who knows what ever else you propose sounds like emoting not thinking
Quote:
+1
section didnt really refute what i ssid. But again to each his own.
Take away the bad typos and you would present decent counterpoints.
What I refute is your utopian ideas. The world exists and people are obscenely brutal. We will never live in a Garden of Eden and that is really what your ideas espouse.
But yeah your ideas on the oil companies is wrong. If production costs go up because of conflict (like bill2 said) they don't make major profits. The big profit is/was with the speculators on the spot market driving costs up by buying the available oil and hoarding. Bush 43 sort of proved that.
With that said, I can't imagine what the desired endgame is here. Do we truly believe any of these middle eastern "nations" can put religious differences aside in the interest of bringing themselves out of third-world status? It appears the only stability any can hope to achieve - Turkey being the outlier - is via assasinations, coup, revolution, civil wars, and theocratic stangeholds; and even then, temporarily.
Perhaps some peoples just can't be helped. Some never get it. Take a look at Russia. Maybe it's time we admit that the mid east is a clunker and leave it on the side of the road.
Quote:
is calling this a civil war. The conflict in Yemen is a tribal war. Like many other 'countries' in the region, their social order is a conglomerate of tribes with different interests. The lack of coherent leadership and fluffy US foreign policy has contributed to the chaos, but by no stretch did it cause it. This is another situation where an absence of order will invite Iran, or Saudi radical factions to gain a base for projection of their ideology.
Bama it is really ideological now, moreso that tribal on the surface. This is Sunni vs Shia. Look at how the players are lining up. Saudi and the Gulf Sunnis vs Iran and its proxies.
This will not go well in the region. I just don't see how this can end up settled, because in the end it is tribal. There is no beholding to a central government. (guess I acknowledged your point to a degree.)
Lots not to like about the current regime but get used to the idea that they will be the strongest and most stable moslem entity in the middle east for the foreseeable future. And nothing they do or support is really any worse in the long run than the things our arab allies do or support.
Of course the Saudis, not to be outdone said they are going to start there own nuke program if this treaty we have with iran goes into effect.
Quote:
runs on oil. The end.
Maybe we should reposition our naval fleet so Canada can sell to us, and only us! I think North America can run their economies on only North American oil. But Europe would implode.
Quote:
runs on oil. The end.
We have ugly allies all over the world. Not just in oil producing states.
We have been supporting ugly allies before oil was relevant.
There are plenty of countries that dont support ugly allies yet live in the same world economy.
Having allies vecause the world economy relies on oil doesnt necistate sending them weapons designed to murder internal dissent.
The us is now the leading oil producer on the world with donestic oil companies currently slowing production to keep prices high.
Oil companies like conflicr in the middle east cause it 4aises prices.
60 years of us internal dicuments clearly explain support for middle east dictators is about control not acess.
Who are you decide that innocent peoples their lives are worth less then economic interests.
Now its end of story. You are a n8ce indoctrinated little fellow
you want to flagellate yourself like good muslims do, go right ahead, go ahead. I think most of the rest of us will decline the excercise in self loathing.You want to be more like the russinas, the chinese? Maybe the english or the germans. I know, the french.
I don't think so.
With that said, I can't imagine what the desired endgame is here. Do we truly believe any of these middle eastern "nations" can put religious differences aside in the interest of bringing themselves out of third-world status? It appears the only stability any can hope to achieve - Turkey being the outlier - is via assasinations, coup, revolution, civil wars, and theocratic stangeholds; and even then, temporarily.
Perhaps some peoples just can't be helped. Some never get it. Take a look at Russia. Maybe it's time we admit that the mid east is a clunker and leave it on the side of the road.
There a clearly sectarian conflicts in the region. War has a way of widening them.
To some wider points. Ill accept the criticism that perhaps i ignore a little to much real politick. I think thats fair. Im young and i think part of being young is to be idealistic.
I just dont see how our policies in the middle east have made us safer. Nor do, as we all seem to agree, are they moral. The consensus here seems to be that are driven by security needs.
But again read the internal us documents and they clearly reflect my views more then others ecpressed here. For example eisenhower in 1958 warned of a campaign if hateed in the middle east not by governments but by the people. They concluded their was a campaign of hatred against us because their us a perception in the region that the us suppirts harsh brutal governments and that we do so cause we want to control near east oil. Thats 1958. Eusenhowrrs response? Well yeah we should be controlling near easy oil and thus we should suppor5 harsh regimes. Thats basically verbatim.
I mean how was giving sadam hussein weapons to attacj iran snd kill his own people helpul? We blocked un resolutions attempting to condemn him for his gas attacks against the kurds and even tried to blame iran!!!
Where did the 911 attackers come from? Saydi arabia. What religious idelogy does isis follow?salafism just like saydi arabia. Who funded isis? Saudi clerics. There is a grest article from former cia high level director graham fuller that points out the us invasion of iraq created isis and increased terrorism 10 fold just as the cia told bush before the war. He and others also argue that islam is a side factor and that the confl8cts are at heart political. The defense departmeny in their old study concluded the same. Nanely we support mondters and as a result terrorist groups target us. Same with mossad.
The internal documents make clear their goel is to un their words maintain global hegemony.
Now someone said earlier that there is nothing wrong with supporting monsters to enhance our economic power. Well if thats true it seems to me hes justifying hitler who did basically the same thing.
I love this country and would choose to live nowhere else. I care about it and the people who live here and view our foreign policy as against its ideals and harming ou4 security.
Morals aside. Our middle east plan of supporting despots has incurres wnormous blowback and failed.
Its time for a new plan.
Quote:
In comment 12206194 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
runs on oil. The end.
We have ugly allies all over the world. Not just in oil producing states.
We have been supporting ugly allies before oil was relevant.
There are plenty of countries that dont support ugly allies yet live in the same world economy.
Having allies vecause the world economy relies on oil doesnt necistate sending them weapons designed to murder internal dissent.
The us is now the leading oil producer on the world with donestic oil companies currently slowing production to keep prices high.
Oil companies like conflicr in the middle east cause it 4aises prices.
60 years of us internal dicuments clearly explain support for middle east dictators is about control not acess.
Who are you decide that innocent peoples their lives are worth less then economic interests.
Now its end of story. You are a n8ce indoctrinated little fellow
as are you, with your inane dribble, as if there are some other govts out there with some sort of moral superiority we should be aspiring to.There isn't.
you want to flagellate yourself like good muslims do, go right ahead, go ahead. I think most of the rest of us will decline the excercise in self loathing.You want to be more like the russinas, the chinese? Maybe the english or the germans. I know, the french.
I don't think so.
With that said, I can't imagine what the desired endgame is here. Do we truly believe any of these middle eastern "nations" can put religious differences aside in the interest of bringing themselves out of third-world status? It appears the only stability any can hope to achieve - Turkey being the outlier - is via assasinations, coup, revolution, civil wars, and theocratic stangeholds; and even then, temporarily.
Perhaps some peoples just can't be helped. Some never get it. Take a look at Russia. Maybe it's time we admit that the mid east is a clunker and leave it on the side of the road.
Since the birth of islam it has spread, through conquest and conflict with few interruptions, like the crusades, the austrians and a united european armyfrom the mideat, through asia, down into indonesia,500 years of occupation in spain and through the upper half of the african continent, stopping them at the gates of Vienna a few hundred years ago, until we carved them up after WWI. they ALWAYS fight amongst themselves. to not see what is going on is to be ignorant to history itself. they are quite fine killing each other whilst in pursuit of their larger goal, one which most muslims worldwide share.Stickign your head in the sand isnt going to stop it. we fought 2 regional wars recently against them and basically lost both. If anyone thinks in 10 years time that either the govt of afghanistan Or iraq will be allied with the US i hate to tell you the odds for that happening are microscopic. Already Iranians generals lead iraqy trioops in the field in battle, and allies like yemen who we promised we would support we have abandoned. Our word is shit in that part of the world, and none of them are scared of us.We arent goign to stop them, we already proved that.
as to whether they are first rate second rate, third rate, i dont think they give a shit about our definitions of economic prosperity, but i can tell you this, pakistan has nukes, the iranians will soon, and you can bet your ass the saudis will in under 20 years if they launch their own program.at that point who gives a shit about labels. we wont even be a player in that game, excpet for being on the defensive ourselves. Far as they are concerned we already threw our best at them, then split.
Quote:
Disagree with pretty much everything brownstone has said on this board. Ever.
With that said, I can't imagine what the desired endgame is here. Do we truly believe any of these middle eastern "nations" can put religious differences aside in the interest of bringing themselves out of third-world status? It appears the only stability any can hope to achieve - Turkey being the outlier - is via assasinations, coup, revolution, civil wars, and theocratic stangeholds; and even then, temporarily.
Perhaps some peoples just can't be helped. Some never get it. Take a look at Russia. Maybe it's time we admit that the mid east is a clunker and leave it on the side of the road.
I think you overlook the fact that until less than a hundred years ago they were one big fucking empire. They still lived like shit and they still terrorized and invaded europe for centuries.
Since the birth of islam it has spread, through conquest and conflict with few interruptions, like the crusades, the austrians and a united european armyfrom the mideat, through asia, down into indonesia,500 years of occupation in spain and through the upper half of the african continent, stopping them at the gates of Vienna a few hundred years ago, until we carved them up after WWI. they ALWAYS fight amongst themselves. to not see what is going on is to be ignorant to history itself. they are quite fine killing each other whilst in pursuit of their larger goal, one which most muslims worldwide share.Stickign your head in the sand isnt going to stop it. we fought 2 regional wars recently against them and basically lost both. If anyone thinks in 10 years time that either the govt of afghanistan Or iraq will be allied with the US i hate to tell you the odds for that happening are microscopic. Already Iranians generals lead iraqy trioops in the field in battle, and allies like yemen who we promised we would support we have abandoned. Our word is shit in that part of the world, and none of them are scared of us.We arent goign to stop them, we already proved that.
as to whether they are first rate second rate, third rate, i dont think they give a shit about our definitions of economic prosperity, but i can tell you this, pakistan has nukes, the iranians will soon, and you can bet your ass the saudis will in under 20 years if they launch their own program.at that point who gives a shit about labels. we wont even be a player in that game, excpet for being on the defensive ourselves. Far as they are concerned we already threw our best at them, then split.
Obama, who I supported in two election, is totally out of his element.
Less than 2 years ago, he wanted to bomb Assad and essentially help ISIS in the process. Now he has Kerry saying we should talk to Assad (and his masters, Iran) to defeat ISIS.
His principal ally in the region, Israel, has fought 3+ ground conflicts during the term of his presidency that were instigated by proxies of Iran (Hezbollah and Hamas) in which hundreds of Israelis and others (including US citizens) have been killed, including by tens of thousands of rockets that in many cases of the longer range ones were actually manufactured in Iran.
We just signed a long-term weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran's chief rival (notwithstanding Israel) in the region, and pretty much the only use Saudi Arabia has for those weapons is to fight Iran or Iran's proxies.
We're sitting down and negotiating an agreement by which it sounds like the target is for Iran to only be 5-6 months away from a nuke, if all goes *perfectly* as planned and gets monitored perfectly. So probably the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (maybe the only 'official' state sponsor of terrorism) and a rival of several allies and 'allies' in the region is going to have sanctions lifted by promising to only keep itself 6 months away from having a nuke - which means assuming they don't cheat that at all they can wait for a time that the US is just unwilling or unable to step in right away and stop them and go forward with a nuke. It should say something that France thinks this is a bad deal.
That, of course, will make Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others seriously consider their own needs for nuclear armament (as they should) in response.
Sorry for the rant, but this all goes to say that if you don't really know what you're doing, and I think Obama has decisively demonstrated he doesn't, it's better to stay out completely and let the locals who know how to deal with it better take care of it (or let them kill each other trying).
Obama, who I supported in two election, is totally out of his element.
Less than 2 years ago, he wanted to bomb Assad and essentially help ISIS in the process. Now he has Kerry saying we should talk to Assad (and his masters, Iran) to defeat ISIS.
His principal ally in the region, Israel, has fought 3+ ground conflicts during the term of his presidency that were instigated by proxies of Iran (Hezbollah and Hamas) in which hundreds of Israelis and others (including US citizens) have been killed, including by tens of thousands of rockets that in many cases of the longer range ones were actually manufactured in Iran.
We just signed a long-term weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran's chief rival (notwithstanding Israel) in the region, and pretty much the only use Saudi Arabia has for those weapons is to fight Iran or Iran's proxies.
We're sitting down and negotiating an agreement by which it sounds like the target is for Iran to only be 5-6 months away from a nuke, if all goes *perfectly* as planned and gets monitored perfectly. So probably the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (maybe the only 'official' state sponsor of terrorism) and a rival of several allies and 'allies' in the region is going to have sanctions lifted by promising to only keep itself 6 months away from having a nuke - which means assuming they don't cheat that at all they can wait for a time that the US is just unwilling or unable to step in right away and stop them and go forward with a nuke. It should say something that France thinks this is a bad deal.
That, of course, will make Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others seriously consider their own needs for nuclear armament (as they should) in response.
Sorry for the rant, but this all goes to say that if you don't really know what you're doing, and I think Obama has decisively demonstrated he doesn't, it's better to stay out completely and let the locals who know how to deal with it better take care of it (or let them kill each other trying).
Alot of the other things you said i agree with
You know about the big lie. If you continue to shout a lie long enough and loud enough people will start to believe it is true. The PA and Hamas / Hezbollah have been shouting long and loud.
Quote:
Iran has a strong ethnic and nation-like history going back pretty much continuously for a couple thousand years.
Lots not to like about the current regime but get used to the idea that they will be the strongest and most stable moslem entity in the middle east for the foreseeable future. And nothing they do or support is really any worse in the long run than the things our arab allies do or support.
Our "allies" have supported terrorist groups comparable to Hamas/Hezbollah? Or the Assad regime which used chemical weapons on its own citizens?
Absolutely. The Saudi rulers are really only concerned with keeping [i]themselves[/] out of the terrorist crosshairs. They've never had any qualms about terrorists who attack others until it became politically convenient to start rooting out al qaeda after 911 made the US mad.They oppress any of their own citizens who are not members of the royal family. They prop up the wahhabi nutcases. They funnel money to Hamas - although not nearly as much as Iran does. And who do you think runs the madrassas in Pakistan that created the Taliban? Most of Al Qaeda's early funding came from private Saudi citizens and some from goverrnmental organizations.
There is no moral reason to choose one moslem middle east country over another. It's strictly a matter of who can do us the most practical good. And I'm beginning to believe in the long run that means the Iranians.
With that said, I can't imagine what the desired endgame is here. Do we truly believe any of these middle eastern "nations" can put religious differences aside in the interest of bringing themselves out of third-world status? It appears the only stability any can hope to achieve - Turkey being the outlier - is via assasinations, coup, revolution, civil wars, and theocratic stangeholds; and even then, temporarily.
Perhaps some peoples just can't be helped. Some never get it. Take a look at Russia. Maybe it's time we admit that the mid east is a clunker and leave it on the side of the road.
Exactly. Well said. In this case any thought of interventionalism needs to be put aside when relgion is involved.
Very true. But they have instituted some quasi democratic institutions and are blessed with an educated and fairly cosmopolitan middle class which seems to have a fondness for those institutions. They are more likely than any other arab state IMO to eventually become a truly democratic country. The Mullahs have the upper hand now but remember what they replaced and how happy people were to be out from under the old regime. Each new generation in Iran will have less memory of the shah and less reason to accept the abuse of the religious nuts running the country now.