What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Yemen Attacks - Are we on the Brink of War? (1 Viewer)

jon_mx

Footballguy
There have now been three separate missile attacks from what are believed to be Iranian-backed forces in Yemen against US Navy ships operating in international waters in the region.  The US has retaliated once destroying several radar sites believed to be assisting in the attacks.  But the attacks continue.  

The Iranian deal, which included a plane filled with $400 million cash, was promised to bring us peace in the region.  But these attacks are clearly acts of war which could quickly escalate should one of our ships suffer casualties.  Also could throw a huge wrench in the upcoming elections.  

One could make the arguement that the US has provided funds which are being used to attack us. Hillary was a central figure in all this.  How should the US respond?  Will our response be tempered due to upcoming elections?   

 
We settled a very old lawsuit. The money isn't here or there in how we should handle the situation.

If we're attacked we should respond. We already have responded with destroyer strikes against three different sites.

To me, the bigger issue is that we're still in bed with ####hole Saudis who have been bombing civilian targets inside Yemen. Iran and SA are fighting proxy wars throughout the region and while I'm definitely not saying we should be on the Iranians' side, siding with Saudis really isn't any better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to continue the thought, look at the war against ISIL. The Iranians are actively fighting ISIL. The Saudis say they are against ISIL, but money continues to flow from SA to the Islamic State.

The leaked emails show that Secretary Clinton acknowledged this and sought to bring pressure against both SA and Qatar to stop their clandestine support of ISIL. "we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And, further explaining my rant, when I say "siding with Saudis really isn't any better" I mean both morally and in terms of our own interests. It's the type of short-sighted approach that has led to so many of our issues in the region.

Understand that I am not attempting and would never attempt to  justify attacks on our ships in international waters. But from the point of view from those Iranian-backed Shia forces, we're the Saudis' allies and possible puppet-masters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't really a partisan issue, as neither party has any change to how we deal with the Saudis in their platform. But Donald has advocated giving nukes to SA. Nukes to one of the most oppressive regimes on Earth! And one that at some level supports ISIL. I won't paint that as a GOP position because literally none of the adults in the party support it.

 
Our economic interests dictate that we must defend the free flow of oil, and we must defend regimes that pledge to keep the US$ as the petrodollar, and overthrow regimes that threaten to move to a different payment system.

We have created such a house of cards that it would/will likely come crashing down if/when the world is no longer dependent on oil and paying for it with US$.

 
The last piece to the puzzle is Saudi Arabia. They aren't going to be able to hang on much longer with these oil prices.  Once they are destabilized the Israeli state agenda will be completed.  With our help they will have successfully destabilized every major islamics state.  

 
There have now been three separate missile attacks from what are believed to be Iranian-backed forces in Yemen against US Navy ships operating in international waters in the region.  The US has retaliated once destroying several radar sites believed to be assisting in the attacks.  But the attacks continue.  

The Iranian deal, which included a plane filled with $400 million cash, was promised to bring us peace in the region.  But these attacks are clearly acts of war which could quickly escalate should one of our ships suffer casualties.  Also could throw a huge wrench in the upcoming elections.  

One could make the arguement that the US has provided funds which are being used to attack us. Hillary was a central figure in all this.  How should the US respond?  Will our response be tempered due to upcoming elections?   
Please read.

 
Our economic interests dictate that we must defend the free flow of oil, and we must defend regimes that pledge to keep the US$ as the petrodollar, and overthrow regimes that threaten to move to a different payment system.

We have created such a house of cards that it would/will likely come crashing down if/when the world is no longer dependent on oil and paying for it with US$.
And yet Democrats have to fight tooth and nail for alternative energy.  It's like Republicans love war or something.

The U.S. could be off of foreign oil within 10-20 years by increasing electric car subsidies, building a large network of hydrogen fueling stations across the country, and building concentrated solar power in the desert Southwest.

All of this would be cheaper than war to keep oil flowing.

 
Couple thoughts:

"The Mason once again appears to have come under attack in the Red Sea, again from coastal defense cruise missiles fired from the coast of Yemen," Navy Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, told reporters at an event in Baltimore Saturday.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/uss-mason-fired-again-coast-yemen-officials-n666971?cid=sm_tw

- Ok the Houthis by themselves do not have this equipment.

According to a 2015 report to the U.N. Security Council Iran Sanctions Committee, Iran probably started providing small amounts of weapons to the Houthis in 2009 — five years after the first round of fighting between the Houthis and government forces. In 2011, U.S. officials — who until then had been dismissive of such accusations — started to acknowledge that Iran was likely responsible for the delivery of automatic rifles, grenade launchers and cash, probably in the millions of dollars.

The Houthi’s takeover of Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, in September 2014 prompted Iran to increase its support. It now appears that small numbers — perhaps dozens — of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers, with assistance from Lebanese Hezbollah, have set up a train and equip program for the Houthis. There have also been reports of intensifying shipping activity between Iran and Yemen.
- WaPo

Yeah actually IRG has such weapons.

Btw this country was pretty much a stable ally in 2008.

In 2014 we had a fairly close repeat of what happened at Benghazi in that the embassy was overrun and US soldiers and foreign service personnel were disarmed and marched out, thankfully no one was killed. IIRC the US did not even send a military plane to pick them up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
higgins said:
If Iran continues to seek to destabilize the region, continues to sponsor proxies like Hezbollah that do so, continues to pose a direct threat to important U.S. allies from Israel to the Gulf, or worse, if it uses resources from this deal to increase those threats, then this deal will be seen as having missed the mark. Indeed, it will be seen as having missed the point altogether if tensions between Iran and its neighbors continue to rise, Iran is seen to gain permanently in places like Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, and the result is war or a perceived motivation on the part of some of those threatened to pursue their own paths toward proliferation.

That the deal in question leaves so many looming questions and solves so little in a lasting and irreversible way is lamentable. But lamenting it or trying to undo it will likely be less productive than focusing on what needs to be done by America and the other members of the P5+1 and our allies in the region as well as by Iran to work to make the deal we have a success. Above all, this means that no one — the president of the United States, his team, the Iranian government, anyone else — sees the deal as an end in itself. It is just another step on what has already been a decade-and-a-half long journey. As intensive as the diplomacy that produced this deal was, similar efforts will be required to ensure the implementation of the deal and the resolve of the international community to enforce it. Any let up (or perceived let up) will be seen as an opportunity by hard-liners in Tehran and as a real threat by Iran’s rivals in the region. This deal is not enough. Other initiatives that support our allies, give them confidence that they can rebuff Iran and send a message to Iran that their hegemonic ambitions will not stand, must be pursued as diligently as this deal was or they will be seen as a half-way measure, a victory with a painfully short half-life. (For a recent poignant example, see the Syria chemical weapons deal.)

In the case of both of this week’s deals, therefore, the really hard work begins now. Getting the deals was tough. Keeping them will be even tougher. But fortunately, thanks to the deals, we have a path forward, something to react to, to work with. The flaws are both clear and manifold. But in both cases an opportunity for a better future has presented itself.

It is certainly far too soon to tell whether these deals will be seen as the game changers their architects hope they will be, but to the critics of the deals I would say that rather than fighting them, you should recognize the essential role you ought to play in making them work. No one is better positioned to ensure their success in the eyes of future generations than those who today are most acutely aware of their flaws.


- From the Iran thread citing this article

Such a step is also a crucial way for Obama to make good on his promise of countering Tehran’s regional ambitions. After all, if Iran can have outsized influence if not outright control in Arab capitals such as Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sanaa while still under sanctions, what will its influence be following a large influx of funds that will allow it to empower elements in its own regime or proxies wanting to destabilize the region further?

The administration insists it will hold Iran’s feet to the fire on the full range of its menacing behaviors. With a nuclear deal in hand, the administration needs to put forward a plan to do so. It could start here.

 
Yemen rebels seize U.S. Embassy vehicles as diplomats flee


9:44 p.m. EST February 11, 2015

Yemen rebels seized U.S. Embassy vehicles in the capital of Sanaa on Wednesday as diplomats fled the country and several foreign embassies closed amid deteriorating security conditions.

More than 25 vehicles were taken by Houthi rebels after Americans departed the city's airport, airport officials told the Associated Press.

The Marine Corps said security personnel destroyed their personal weapons before boarding a commercial flight out of Yemen.

...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/11/yemen-embassy-closures/23220185/

- Happened last year. The US got extremely lucky here. What's the difference from what happened at Benghazi, aside from the fact no one got killed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok let's look at what war threads we have and then look at the wars behind them:

- Yemen

- Iraq

- Syria

- Lybia

- Afghanistan

- Ukraine

Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but we ARE at war right now.
Agreed.  We've been at war for more than a decade. 

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
We get almost none of our oil from the ME, but it is still strategic because of oil. 
But with oil being a commodity, if we consume less and keep pumping our own, we can greatly devalue oil. Completely ####### over the middle east, robbing them of cash to fund terror, buy weapons, etc.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok let's look at what war threads we have and then look at the wars behind them:

- Yemen

- Iraq

- Syria

- Lybia

- Afghanistan

- Ukraine

Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but we ARE at war right now.
Don't worry, we can lick Lybia.

 
But with oil being a commodity, if we consume less and keep pumping our own, we can greatly devalue oil. Completely ####### over the middle east, robbing them of cash to fund terror, buy weapons, etc.
Exactly.

 
Any one ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin?

On 2 August 1964, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces had twice attacked American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1] Known today as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, this event spawned the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 7 August 1964, ultimately leading to open war between North Vietnam and the United States. It furthermore foreshadowed the major escalation of the Vietnam War in South Vietnam, which began with the landing of US regular combat troops at Da Nang in 1965.
By the way why are there naval ships off the coast of Yemen to attack?

It worked once.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And you know maybe we are being attacked. I wonder why? Could it be our aiding and abetting of Saudi war crimes in Yemen? No they just think it's a good idea to attack the worlds only super power, that must be it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Our economic interests dictate that we must defend the free flow of oil, and we must defend regimes that pledge to keep the US$ as the petrodollar, and overthrow regimes that threaten to move to a different payment system.

We have created such a house of cards that it would/will likely come crashing down if/when the world is no longer dependent on oil and paying for it with US$.
Our economic interests dictate that we must always be involved in military conflict.  

 
Sure sounds like the Navy is begging to be attacked.
Making it easy. It isn't our fight. We can't keep doing this, it is bankrupting us. We don't have the money for college for all but we got trillions for war. We can't afford universal healthcare but more bombs Yes we can. And we can sell a brutal regime billions in weapons while we prattle on about the Iranians. Eisenhower called it and we ignored him. Beating plowshares into swords is not really going that well. Well for most of us.

 
 In almost every case something like this happens we deploy another aircraft carrier over there immediately to show our dominance.  However, we didn't do it this time.  The particular type of attack is to stop.  Apparently there is good reason to think we might have been baited into sending a carrier to the area and it getting screwed with.  I say screwed with because I don't think it would actually get touched but certainly scary none the less. Most people don't understand the magnitude of a statement like this, but it speaks volumes.  This isn't just talk anymore, people are preparing for war all around us.  

 
Aside from the fact no one got killed? The Ambassador being killed is as bad as it gets.  Luck will always run out if you don't have a good plan in place.  It doesn't look like they do.
The lack of casualties explains the lack of news coverage and political outrage.

But the fact we had 2 embassies/missions overrun by foreign militia in 3 years seems important.

 
Exclusive: Iran steps up weapons supply to Yemen's Houthis via Oman - officials


Iran has stepped up weapons transfers to the Houthis, the militia fighting the Saudi-backed government in Yemen, U.S., Western and Iranian officials tell Reuters, a development that threatens to prolong and intensify the 19-month-old war.

The increased pace of transfers in recent months, which officials said include missiles and small arms, could exacerbate a security headache for the United States, which last week struck Houthi targets with cruise missiles in retaliation for failed missile attacks on a U.S. Navy destroyer.

...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran-idUSKCN12K0CX

- In case anyone missed it yes we struck back at the Houthis and yes the Iranians are amping up the arms supplies.

Not really sure where Iran gets the money to do all this...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We would appreciate it if you would be a little more vague.
That's kind of the point.   Open ended wars against vague targets never have to end.  The suspension of civil liberties can be indefinite.  The military industrial complex can arm nations all over the world in its name. 

 
And yet Democrats have to fight tooth and nail for alternative energy.  It's like Republicans love war or something.

The U.S. could be off of foreign oil within 10-20 years by increasing electric car subsidies, building a large network of hydrogen fueling stations across the country, and building concentrated solar power in the desert Southwest.

All of this would be cheaper than war to keep oil flowing.
Not that these aren't good goals to be aiming for, but all it does is shift our dependencies to other materials like Lithium.  Chile, China, and Argentina lead in that particular mineral.

Solar panels require lots of minerals

We can't pretend that getting off of oil makes us energy independent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that these aren't good goals to be aiming for, but all it does is shift our dependencies to other materials like Lithium.  Chile, China, and Argentina lead in that particular mineral.

Solar panels require lots of minerals

We can't pretend that getting off of oil makes us energy independent.
Concentrated solar power uses mirrors to power a steam turbine.  I'm not sure what materials go into those mirrors, but I doubt they are rare. 

Also, the more energy options we have reduces our dependence on any single resource and helps keep the prices down for all of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Concentrated solar power uses mirrors to power a steam turbine.  I'm not sure what materials go into those mirrors, but I doubt they are rare. 

Also, the more energy options we have reduces our dependence on any single resource and helps keep the prices down for all of them.
You mentioned electric vehicles as well.  Do you think we can satisfy all of our power needs with only concentrated solar power?

All I'm saying is that energy independence is a very difficult goal to attain, not that moving off fossil fuels isn't a good thing.

 
Concentrated solar power uses mirrors to power a steam turbine.  I'm not sure what materials go into those mirrors, but I doubt they are rare. 

Also, the more energy options we have reduces our dependence on any single resource and helps keep the prices down for all of them.
Not to mention, there aren't Chinamen or Argentinians who would give their left nut for a chance to suicide bomb an American shopoing mall. Not like many in the oil producing regions.

 
 


Ballistic missile launched by Houthi militias toward Makkah intercepted


Friday 1438/1/27 - 2016/10/28
Riyadh, Muharram 27, 1438, October 28, 2016, SPA -- The command of the coalition forces to support the legitimacy in Yemen announced on Thursday 26/10/1438 H corresponding to 27/10/2016 AD the interception of a ballistic missile launched by Houthi militias at 21:00 Thursday evening from Saada province toward Makkah area. The air defense was able to intercept and destroyed it about 65 km from Makkah without any damage.
The coalition's air forces targeted the launch site.
--SPA
00:10 LOCAL TIME 21:10 GMT
http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1553012
 
- Fyi Makkah is Mecca.
 
Prett unfunny stuff here.
 
Ballistic missile launched by Houthi militias toward Makkah intercepted


Friday 1438/1/27 - 2016/10/28
Riyadh, Muharram 27, 1438, October 28, 2016, SPA -- The command of the coalition forces to support the legitimacy in Yemen announced on Thursday 26/10/1438 H corresponding to 27/10/2016 AD the interception of a ballistic missile launched by Houthi militias at 21:00 Thursday evening from Saada province toward Makkah area. The air defense was able to intercept and destroyed it about 65 km from Makkah without any damage.
The coalition's air forces targeted the launch site.
--SPA
00:10 LOCAL TIME 21:10 GMT




 
http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1553012
 
- Fyi Makkah is Mecca.
 
Prett unfunny stuff here.



 
Why are they bombing Mecca?

 
 


http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1553012
 
- Fyi Makkah is Mecca.
 
Prett unfunny stuff here.
Where are you getting this story?  Here's an identical one from Sept. 4:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/irans-houthi-rebel-allies-yemen-fire-scud-missiles-mecca/

The Saudi military said the missile, fired Thursday night from Yemen's northwestern Saada province bordering the kingdom, caused no damage. The Saudi military has a supply of US-made, surface-to-air Patriot missile batteries it previously has fired at Houthi-launched missiles. 
Looks legit:

CBS link

So-called 'Muslims' trying to destroy the Kaaba.  SMH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A source in military circles confirmed that it is already the 11th sunken ship over the past six months. Recall that the previous successful attack took place on the 4th February. On that day the militias of the "Houthi" movement sank 4 boats belonging to Saudi Arabia.
Wow.  This was from LAST February.. wtf is going on that the Saudi's are getting caught off guard?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In deadly Yemen raid, a lesson for Trump’s national security team


he mission facing the Navy SEALs as they approached a remote desert compound was a formidable one: detain Yemeni tribal leaders collaborating with al-Qaeda and gather intelligence that could plug a critical gap in U.S. understanding of one of the world’s most dangerous militant groups.

Instead, a massive firefight ensued, claiming the life of an American sailor and at least one Yemeni child, and serving as an early lesson for President Trump’s national security team about the perils of overseas ground operations.

The raid Saturday in Yemen’s Bayda governorate, which also included elite forces from the United Arab Emirates, was the first counterterrorism operation approved by Trump, who took office a week earlier. And the death of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, who would later succumb to his injuries, was the first combat fatality of Trump’s young presidency.

... In Saturday’s operation, the SEALs faced difficulties from the start. After the U.S. forces descended on the village of Yaklaa, a heavily guarded al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) stronghold surrounded by land mines, militants launched an intense counterattack.

...

As the pitched gunbattle continued, officials called in Marine Cobra helicopter gunships, backed by Harrier jets, to strike the AQAP fighters, according to U.S. officials familiar with the incident.

An elite Special Operations air regiment was then sent in to pull the team and its casualties out of the fray, banking into the night under heavy fire to link up with a Marine quick-reaction force that had taken off in MV-22 Ospreys from the USS Makin Island floating offshore.

The two units planned to meet in the desert to transfer the wounded SEALs so they could be taken back to the amphibious assault ship for treatment, but one of the Ospreys lost power, hitting the ground hard enough to wound two service members and disable the aircraft.

With the twin-engine transport out of action, a Marine jet dropped a GPS-guided bomb on the disabled $70 million Osprey to ensure that it did not fall into militant hands.

Yemeni officials said the operation killed 15 women and children, including the 8-year-old daughter of the late radical Yemeni American cleric Anwar ­al-Awlaki, who was killed in 2011 in a U.S. drone strike. American officials said they were unable to immediately confirm the civilian deaths but suggested that most or all of those killed were militants.

Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said women participated in the gunfight.

...

Last year, the United States established a tiny Special Operations presence in coastal Yemen, working alongside Emirati troops to keep tabs on AQAP activities.

The group has been one of the most potent branches of the global militant network and has been involved in multiple plots to attack the West.

“Undoubtedly DOD is focused on steps that make up for the current gaps in our knowledge in Yemen,” the former senior official said.

The operation may also be a sign of things to come. The Pentagon, according to two defense officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, is drawing up plans to be considered by the White House that, if approved, could delegate decision-making for operations in Yemen to a lower level and accelerate activities against AQAP.

...

While that would seemingly be indicative of a more aggressive stance by Trump, one official described the raid and the proposal as an outgrowth of earlier Obama-era operations that have pushed al-Qaeda militants from their sanctuaries and provided more opportunities for U.S. strikes.

“We expect an easier approval cycle [for operations] under this administration,” another defense official said.

The same model was applied after an extended U.S. air campaign in Libya that pushed Islamic State militants into desert camps, where they were eventually pursued and destroyed by stealth bombers.

A former senior defense official familiar with prior operations in Yemen said Saturday’s raid and the potential for expanded operations were “overdue.”

“We really struggled with getting the White House comfortable with getting boots on the ground in Yemen,” the former official said. “Since the new administration has come in, the approvals [at the Pentagon] appear to have gone up.”

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/31/how-trumps-first-counter-terror-operation-in-yemen-turned-into-chaos/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=buffer8afa6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=.13f2572df177

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top