thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Jul 25, 2024 19:57:48 GMT
Seems like involving themselves in a conflict that they don't have anything to do with them by fucking with other people wasn't a good idea. Also, another word for (some) of what they are doing is piracy. Was it a bad idea? Depends on what they're trying to accomplish:
They're not deterred by these attacks.
But Biden's claim is completely false. Why tell the American people we're not at war when we are?
Yes, yes, we should immediately stop interfering their trade interdiction attempts. Is that what you are saying? Are we 'at war' against piracy in the same area? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 25, 2024 20:06:48 GMT
Yes, yes, we should immediately stop interfering their trade interdiction attempts. Is that what you are saying? Are we 'at war' against piracy in the same area?
Defending shipping is perfectly legitimate; we also have to do a better job of trying to interdict arms from Iran (and now possibly Russia too). That also resolves the issue of failed deterrence, because the only other option is further escalation which draws us deeper into conflict in Yemen - something that has been advocated (some people going so far as to suggest sending in troops). And any further escalation in Yemen would probably lead to increased targeting of US troops in Iraq and Syria.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Jul 25, 2024 20:11:11 GMT
Yes, yes, we should immediately stop interfering their trade interdiction attempts. Is that what you are saying? Are we 'at war' against piracy in the same area?
Defending shipping is perfectly legitimate; we also have to do a better job of trying to interdict arms from Iran (and now possibly Russia too). That also resolves the issue of failed deterrence, because the only other option is further escalation which draws us deeper into conflict in Yemen - something that has been advocated (some people going so far as to suggest sending in troops). And any further escalation in Yemen would probably lead to increased targeting of US troops in Iraq and Syria.
How is attacking bases, launch site and other associated targets not 'defending shipping'? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 25, 2024 20:23:29 GMT
How is attacking bases, launch site and other associated targets not 'defending shipping'? These strikes are not actions in self defense; they're part of an offensive that began in January. As we have previously discussed, Biden needs Congressional authorization for that, which he doesn't have.
Furthermore, as pointed out above ( and in other threads), these strikes have failed to deter the Houthis.
We can keep doing it, but we're not achieving anything. So, we can escalate, or we can go back to strictly defensive tactics, which is what we were doing from November 2023 to January 2024.
Which would you prefer? And if we're doing to the same or escalating, Biden still needs Congressional approval.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Jul 26, 2024 12:24:29 GMT
How is attacking bases, launch site and other associated targets not 'defending shipping'? These strikes are not actions in self defense; they're part of an offensive that began in January. As we have previously discussed, Biden needs Congressional authorization for that, which he doesn't have.
Furthermore, as pointed out above ( and in other threads), these strikes have failed to deter the Houthis.
We can keep doing it, but we're not achieving anything. So, we can escalate, or we can go back to strictly defensive tactics, which is what we were doing from November 2023 to January 2024.
Which would you prefer? And if we're doing to the same or escalating, Biden still needs Congressional approval.
They are absolutely self-defense. Hit them before they attack - a no-brainer. Whether those attacks are 100% effective in deterring them is not a reason to not conduct them. Because destroying shit before it is fired means it won't get fired. Obviously. I will also tell you this, again: If you were a sailor on one of those ships, would you give a shit about Congressional approval? No, you would not. Once again, this is abstract to you, demos, not real. Also, is our participation in the anti-piracy operations in the area upsetting you as well? Consider blasting the Houthis as anti-piracy - because ultimately, that's what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Jul 26, 2024 12:30:30 GMT
I'vve pointed out before that a US naval vessel does not require any approval from anybody to defend itself at sea.
And last time I checked, Israel is ramping up their action against Houthis in Yemen.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 26, 2024 13:42:11 GMT
They are absolutely self-defense. Hit them before they attack - a no-brainer. This is part of an ongoing offensive. Statutorily, US forces can act in immediate self defense without a declaration of war. But that's not what these strikes are.
It's a determining factor in whether or not to continue the offensive or to escalate it.
Do you think we should escalate?
And this has been answered before. You never responded.
What the Houthis are doing isn't piracy. Is targeting Israel piracy? Because we've also been shooting down Houthi missiles targeting Israel.
EDIT: Before I get out of here, to expand on the piracy claim. US law states: "Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life."
International law defines piracy as:
Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). [ UNCLOS, Article 101]
What the Houthis are doing does not meet that definition.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 26, 2024 13:46:20 GMT
I'vve pointed out before that a US naval vessel does not require any approval from anybody to defend itself at sea. That's correct. However, as I've pointed out before, these strikes are part of an ongoing offensive.
Israel seems like they're walking into a wider war: Hezbollah, Yemen. And they still haven't finished things in Gaza.
And US troops could become caught up in it. So, if Israel expands its war, can probably expect a lot more of this:
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Jul 26, 2024 20:33:58 GMT
They are absolutely self-defense. Hit them before they attack - a no-brainer. This is part of an ongoing offensive. Statutorily, US forces can act in immediate self defense without a declaration of war. But that's not what these strikes are.
It's a determining factor in whether or not to continue the offensive or to escalate it.
Do you think we should escalate?
And this has been answered before. You never responded.
What the Houthis are doing isn't piracy. Is targeting Israel piracy? Because we've also been shooting down Houthi missiles targeting Israel.
Your answers are unconvincing. And yes, it is piracy: apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-red-sea-ship-yemen-houthis-65b611ff878a411900037e7c9a8ee17bNow, what was done to eradicate pirates a couple a centuries ago.....? Oh yeah....in addition to hunting down their ships, their bases were destroyed as well. And yes, of that means smoking their bases 'in person' to prevent this piracy, I am all about it. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 26, 2024 20:57:43 GMT
Your answers are unconvincing. And yes, it is piracy: According to international law, piracy is: Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). [ UNCLOS, Article 101] What the Houthis are doing does not meet that definition. Even with the helicopter (which appears to have been a one off), I think given their status as a party to a civil war and control of territory would rule that out as piracy as well. Is it a private aircraft being used for private ends? Seems like political ends to me, particularly as its part of a broader conflict.
Ironically, the current conflict has driven the actual Red Sea pirates into the Indian Ocean. ( Source)
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Jul 26, 2024 21:18:43 GMT
I'vve pointed out before that a US naval vessel does not require any approval from anybody to defend itself at sea. That's correct. However, as I've pointed out before, these strikes are part of an ongoing offensive.
Israel seems like they're walking into a wider war: Hezbollah, Yemen. And they still haven't finished things in Gaza.
And US troops could become caught up in it. So, if Israel expands its war, can probably expect a lot more of this:
Yep, as long as US naval vessels are being attacked at sea, there will be an "ongoing offensive." You can bet on that. Israel blew the shit out of some port in Yemen a couple weeks ago. If the Houthis keep it up, I expect Israel to accelerate their activity against them. But, hull, Israel has been in pretty much continuous armed conflict on a greater or lesser scale since its inception. Why get excited about it now? Sixty years of stealing land and establishing settlements is bound to create a lot of enemies...for them and for us. As long as we tolerate and support it. If not for the "religious" overones of it, Republicans would be howling about the hundreds of billions of dollars we've sent them over the past six decades. I wonder if Republicans would cange their views about Ukraine if it were a Jewish state or if it were a fundamentalist Christian state. I'd put all I own and all I can borrow on that bet. Basing policy on religious fable is the height of idiocy. Apparently sixty years of it is still not enough for a serious evaluation. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Jul 26, 2024 21:20:52 GMT
Your answers are unconvincing. And yes, it is piracy: According to international law, piracy is: Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). [ UNCLOS, Article 101] What the Houthis are doing does not meet that definition. Even with the helicopter, I think given their status as a party to a civil war and control of territory would rule that out as piracy as well. Is it a private aircraft being used for private ends? Seems like political ends to me, particularly as its part of a broader conflict.
Yes, demos, it does: "Piracy consists of ANY of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship"Your definition. Unless you are trying to claim what the Houthis are doing isn't illegal. "So, you support another 20 year military misadventure in the ME then? That's certainly what this country needs." Are you willing to ignore the temper-tantrum of an uninvolved third-party to the events in Gaza that is disrupting shipping that effects the world? I'm not. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Jul 26, 2024 21:45:46 GMT
Yes, demos, it does: "Piracy consists of ANY of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship"Your definition.
"Additionally, these attacks cannot be considered as piracy, which grants states enforcement jurisdiction (UNCLOS, Art. 105, 110), as at least one of the conditions is not fulfilled. Piracy is defined as violent acts ‘for private ends’ (UNCLOS, Art. 101). Some argue that such ends are not limited to economic goals (e.g., here, here). Piracy could include acts for political purposes, such as those reflected in the Houthis statements. However, UNCLOS’s negotiating history indicates that piracy is for economic gains (e.g., here, para. 61; here, para. 11). This interpretation finds a precursor in the 1958 High Seas Convention, the provisions of which suggested that acts for political ends would not be regarded as piracy (e.g., here, para. 19; here, p. 99; here, p. 40-41)."
They're engaging in war (the strikes aren't just against shipping), specifically against Israel. There's a way to deal with that, which isn't twisting international law on piracy to avoid following our constitutional process. Since you want to cite our actions 2 centuries ago, can I assume you're on board with following that constitutional process? I assume we're all rule of law fans here.
I've already said what I think we should do, and no, it's not spending blood and treasure in Yemen. That would be about as disastrous as our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Add to what I've already suggested which would be ending Israel's war in Gaza - the Houthis stated reason for their actions.
Worst part of all this is how our and the Saudis policies in the Yemeni civil war drew Iran and the Houthis closer, leading them to having these drones and missiles.
I'm out for the weekend. Look forward to picking this back up later.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Aug 9, 2024 19:25:41 GMT
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Aug 13, 2024 19:30:51 GMT
Harrison Mann - former US army major and executive officer of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Middle East/Africa Regional Center |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Aug 20, 2024 15:55:11 GMT
Apparently Trump wasn't hard enough on Iran during his presidency.
That's certainly a take.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Aug 20, 2024 16:37:05 GMT
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 12, 2024 18:31:22 GMT
Lol. She actually said that?
Good on NBC though.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 17, 2024 16:59:52 GMT
The administration's response:
“Hamas and the Houthis being allowed to operate in Iraq only risks increasing the number of armed groups that have an interest in using violence to undermine the Government of Iraq’s goals for stability, sovereignty, and economic growth.” ( Source)
I believe the correct term for this is blowback.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 18, 2024 15:42:45 GMT
If Israel wants to start a war in Lebanon (because the last 2 went so well), they can do it without expecting us to cover their ass and taking any hits over it.
|
|
