U.S. Senate Advances Resolution To End Military Support For Saudis In Yemen

According to Reuters, the U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to advance a resolution to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen’s civil war, setting the stage for debate and a later vote in the chamber. President Donald Trump’s administration had urged lawmakers to back continued military support for the Saudi-led coalition. But several of his fellow Republicans joined Democrats to give the measure the 60 votes needed to advance. Thirty-nine senators, all Republicans, cast no votes on the procedural matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has much wider consequences than we realize in this moment...and Russia will probably move in...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like an invitation for a stronger Iranian influence in Yemen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ThunderBlade said:

.... But several of his fellow Republicans joined Democrats to give the measure the 60 votes needed to advance.... 

You missed news. 11 Republicans joined all Democrats in support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In peace sons bury fathers, but war violates the order of nature, and fathers bury sons"-Herodotus
End of all wars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Imagine - bombed and starved 85,000 kids to death in 2018 alone ... Sick, sad and terrible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Petar said:

This has much wider consequences than we realize in this moment...and Russia will probably move in...

^This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was just a show. The House vote insured nothing will go forward, and the Senate knew that would happen. About the only person in the US who doesn't openly acknowledge what happen is President Trump. Even Halley speaks openly about it.

Because businesses won't invest outside money in the KSA now, there is real pressure on the Kingdom. This pressure is independent of anything elected officials say, or don't say. 

Yemen isn't a vassal state of Iran. Heck, Yemen hasn't had an effective government since 2012 or so. That the Saudis and Emirates haven't defeated Yemen is pretty astounding when you compare resources. Perhaps the most lopsided war in history in terms of spend of one side compared to the other for what, to achieve a draw on the ground and a fiscal and PR disaster while strengthening your real advisory's position (Iran). The USA was bombing the bejeezus out of eastern Yemen with drones prior to the Houthie/Saudi thing because eastern Yemen is Al Qaida controlled, and AL Qaida has strengthened since this version of the war started. And those folks are funded by Saudis and Emirates to get them to fight Houthies. But if they win, the money dries up. And so it goes. The only losers are the rank and file Yemenis people. You couldn't make this one up if you tried.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, John Foote said:

This was just a show. The House vote insured nothing will go forward, and the Senate knew that would happen. About the only person in the US who doesn't openly acknowledge what happen is President Trump. Even Halley speaks openly about it.

Because businesses won't invest outside money in the KSA now, there is real pressure on the Kingdom. This pressure is independent of anything elected officials say, or don't say. 

Yemen isn't a vassal state of Iran. Heck, Yemen hasn't had an effective government since 2012 or so. That the Saudis and Emirates haven't defeated Yemen is pretty astounding when you compare resources. Perhaps the most lopsided war in history in terms of spend of one side compared to the other for what, to achieve a draw on the ground and a fiscal and PR disaster while strengthening your real advisory's position (Iran). The USA was bombing the bejeezus out of eastern Yemen with drones prior to the Houthie/Saudi thing because eastern Yemen is Al Qaida controlled, and AL Qaida has strengthened since this version of the war started. And those folks are funded by Saudis and Emirates to get them to fight Houthies. But if they win, the money dries up. And so it goes. The only losers are the rank and file Yemenis people. You couldn't make this one up if you tried.

You are right, it is a mess.

I personally want our boys home from there,  and Afghanistan.

But,  Yemen is so close to the Saudi's that we need to do something to try to stem the tide.

There was a liberal movie from the 1970's called "3 days of the condor".

There is a quote from the film.   A department head asks the Director what he misses,  and his response was "THE CLARITY.'

When it come to the various, different, inter-mingled alliances of the various party's to the Middle east,   there is no "CLARITY" anymore as to who represents what.    No Black and White.  It is all GRAY.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sabanews.net/en/news518822.htm

according to Yemen news outlet, shelling continues after yesterday's partial truce. 

oh brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

I personally want our boys home from there,  and Afghanistan.

But,  Yemen is so close to the Saudi's that we need to do something to try to stem the tide.

Yemen is not a threat to Saudi. The country is only fundamentally a threat to itself. Attacking Yemen probably makes KSA less secure when you realize the heritage of so many Saudis, in a region where family and tribe are far more important than the relatively new concept of nation-state. What possessed MbS to go after Yemen, over the objections of the then Crown Prince, is beyond my imagination. At least Qatar has wealth they covet, and an embarrassing press. I believe MbS thought Yemen (and Qatar) would just bend to his will. As the Royal Court does.

And amen to bringing our boys home. 

I really liked "Three Days of the Condor." Had Nixon not been so weakened and distracted by Watergate perhaps something would have happened. The basic premise of plans in place was probably true. We put the Shah in place for far less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Petar said:

This has much wider consequences than we realize in this moment...and Russia will probably move in...

Suppose Russia moves in.  What then? 

 

3 hours ago, Illurion said:

When it come to the various, different, inter-mingled alliances of the various party's to the Middle east,   there is no "CLARITY" anymore as to who represents what.    No Black and White.  It is all GRAY.

To me, that sounds like an argument in favor of developing oil outside the Middle East as rapidly as possible and then abandoning the area.  I'm not an expert though; how would you play this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Suppose Russia moves in.  What then? 

 

To me, that sounds like an argument in favor of developing oil outside the Middle East as rapidly as possible and then abandoning the area.  I'm not an expert though; how would you play this?

I doubt that Russia wants anything to do with Yemen.  They learned their lesson in Afghanistan.

We learned our lesson in Vietnam. 

But 9/11 placed us in a situation where we HAD to respond to someone,  and since Bin Laden did the planning in Afghanistan,  we started there.    We continued with unfinished business in Iraq.    This current Syria thing that Obama started is a big mistake.

We are in Yemen to keep it "fluid",  since it really no longer exists as a country.  We and the Saudi's are there because Iran, and Al Qaida are there.

As for developing our own oil,  and getting out of the Middle East,   Isn't that what we are doing ?

But then what do i know.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ThunderBlade said:

According to Reuters, the U.S. Senate voted on Wednesday to advance a resolution to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen’s civil war, setting the stage for debate and a later vote in the chamber. President Donald Trump’s administration had urged lawmakers to back continued military support for the Saudi-led coalition. But several of his fellow Republicans joined Democrats to give the measure the 60 votes needed to advance. Thirty-nine senators, all Republicans, cast no votes on the procedural matter.

Trump still protecting Ksa Leaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rafattt said:

Trump still protecting Ksa Leaders

Long ago,  the United States had two "proxies" in the Middle East who represented our interests:  Israel & Iran.

Iran fell.

These days,  the United States still has two "proxies" in the Middle East who represent our interests:   Israel & Saudi Arabia.

The purpose of two proxies is to cover both sides of the religious void.   

Both proxies will do our bidding when the issue is important enough.

That is why the votes failed.  and will continue to do so.

Iran may fall again,  and in the future,  may become one of our "proxies" again.

You never know.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Illurion said:

I doubt that Russia wants anything to do with Yemen.  They learned their lesson in Afghanistan.

We learned our lesson in Vietnam. 

But 9/11 placed us in a situation where we HAD to respond to someone,  and since Bin Laden did the planning in Afghanistan,  we started there.    We continued with unfinished business in Iraq.    This current Syria thing that Obama started is a big mistake.

We are in Yemen to keep it "fluid",  since it really no longer exists as a country.  We and the Saudi's are there because Iran, and Al Qaida are there.

As for developing our own oil,  and getting out of the Middle East,   Isn't that what we are doing ?

But then what do i know. 

What was the reasoning behind Syria, and why do you think it was a mistake?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/13/2018 at 9:19 PM, mthebold said:

What was the reasoning behind Syria, and why do you think it was a mistake?

I could go on and on about why it was a mistake for Obama to announce that the USA had no problem with regime change in Syria,  but i will just attach a picture that says it all.

This little boy would still be alive.

His name was Alan Kurdi, and he was 3.   He died as his family tried to leave Syria,  and failed.

this is a link to what happened: 

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/604590/Migrant-crisis-the-truth-about-the-boy-the-beach-Aylan-Kurdi

 

I have removed Alan's picture.  But please do not forget him.   It is easy for people to talk and make decisions in the safety and comfort of their "dispassionate" homes.   But there is no such thing as a "free lunch".   SOMEONE HAS TO PAY.   In regard to Syria,   "dispassionate" people made the decision to destabilize a country.   Alan was one of the people who actually paid the bill.   Good Night.

 

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Illurion said:

I could go on and on about why it was a mistake for Obama to announce that the USA had no problem with regime change in Syria,  but i will just attach a picture that says it all.

This little boy would still be alive.

His name was Alan Kurdi, and he was 3.   He died as his family tried to leave Syria,  and failed.

this is a link to what happened:  

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/604590/Migrant-crisis-the-truth-about-the-boy-the-beach-Aylan-Kurdi

<Image Omitted>

Not to be callous, but any statement that includes a photo of a child's tragic death doesn't pass for reasonable geopolitical analysis. 

One of the interesting aspects of military service during wartime is that there inevitably comes a day when you face an impossible scenario.  There is no right answer.  There is no policy or action that will save the day.  Someone will die, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.  When that day comes, the fog of Western idealistic idiocy lifts.  It's an unpleasant experience for sure, but also a necessary milestone on the path to adulthood.  One realizes that it's insufficient to feel empathy, hope for a better future, and "do something".  The dying will continue until unpleasant truths are faced and difficult decisions are made.  One must understand the problem and lead

Graphic photos and heartfelt statements are for virtue signaling; dispassionate analysis is for leaders. 

Edited by mthebold
Removed Image
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly object to the posting of that picture.  Please remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

@CMOP @Rodent Your call, of course, but I will repeat that I strongly object to the posting of the picture above and ask that it be removed.  I do not object to the reference to his story or posting a link that leads to the photo.  It is IMO inappropriate to post pics of such on a site such as this one.

Edited by Dan Warnick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I strongly object to the posting of that picture.  Please remove it.

I found it unhelpful, but I wouldn't say I "strongly object" to it.  May I ask why you find it inappropriate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I found it unhelpful, but I wouldn't say I "strongly object" to it.  May I ask why you find it inappropriate? 

Because I do not come here to look at pictures of dead children.  As I said, a link would leave the choice of whether I want to look at dead children or not to me, or any other reader.  Posting it directly to a discussion page leaves no choice.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Because I do not come here to look at pictures of dead children.  As I said, a link would leave the choice of whether I want to look at dead children or not to me, or any other reader.  Posting it directly to a discussion page leaves no choice.

Duly noted.  I'll keep that in mind when I post things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I strongly object to the posting of that picture.  Please remove it.

Sorry for the delay dan and mthebold.   I have been at the hospital with my Wife.  She had a bad fall.  Just got home.

I have no problem removing the picture.

I was asked in an earlier post to provide my reasoning on why i thought the war in Syria was a mistake.

A big task.   I wrote what i thought,  and in the end,  it was over a 1000 words, and a page long.

I don't like posting long messages,  though i do sometimes.

In the end,   i deleted my 1000 word reasoning,   

I remembered the old saying that "A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS."

So i posted the picture of this poor little boy,  and 3 sentences leading to a link to his story.

 

Now you know why i posted the picture.

 

Now you know exactly what i feel about the Syrian war.

 

Your responses that it is "inappropriate"  and that you "strongly object" to the picture is exactly the way i feel about the United States being part of the Syrian conflict.

 

It never should have happened.   But it did.

 

This little boy "Alan" is the face of that war,   and whenever i think of the war,  i think of him.

 

He should not be forgotten.

 

I am sorry that you are offended,   but you asked,  so i answered.

 

I am removing the picture now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mthebold said:

Not to be callous, but any statement that includes a photo of a child's tragic death doesn't pass for reasonable geopolitical analysis. 

One of the interesting aspects of military service during wartime is that there inevitably comes a day when you face an impossible scenario.  There is no right answer.  There is no policy or action that will save the day.  Someone will die, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.  When that day comes, the fog of Western idealistic idiocy lifts.  It's an unpleasant experience for sure, but also a necessary milestone on the path to adulthood.  One realizes that it's insufficient to feel empathy, hope for a better future, and "do something".  The dying will continue until unpleasant truths are faced and difficult decisions are made.  One must understand the problem and lead

Graphic photos and heartfelt statements are for virtue signaling; dispassionate analysis is for leaders. 

I removed mine.   Please remove yours.  Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites