War in Yemen

[Argus]

Great idea to lift sanctions and allow Iran to go nuclear. </sarcasm> The question is do they turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot, or just Israel? Obama's real bright on this one. Not.

I think the Democrats have a point in asking what the alternative to some kind of deal is?

[Rue]

The alternative is strict sanctions and assistance to Iranian opposition until the current regime crumbles and pro Western Iranians can take it back.

[Rue]

Once again its not official, but just Big Guy making another completely absurd comment about Yemen saying its under the control of Isis-Al Quaeda or combo thereof.

First off the two are in a war against each other. Someone explain to Big Guy, if they are in a state of war, you don't enter into a combo of control and combo is to be reserved for when Big Guy goes to MacDonald's.

Yemen is under no one's control.

Yemen is in a state of fracture. It has ISIL in some quadrants, Al Queda in others, certain Shiite terror cells in others. No one has coordinated anything.

The former President of Yemen is in Aden, Saudi Arabian intelligence is backing both Al Quaeda an ISIL, Iran and Hezbollah are backing specific but not all Shiite terror cells. Hamas who just at the end of February announced a new alliance with Hezbollah and Iran to as they said wipe out Israel, now find their sister Muslim brotherhood cells ISIL and Al Quaeda already at war with one another and at war with Hezbollah and Iran in Syria and Iraq now also at war with each other in Yemen.

The same genius Obama once again is sitting with his hands wedged up his buttox watching Yemen melt down as he did Libya, Syria, Iraq. Its called a leadership vacuum. Thank you Barry for sending a message to Iran you need them so badly to like you they invade Iraq, and Yemen not just Syria. Atta boy Barry keep bending over backwords and asking Iran to insert itself with a peace treaty.Hey now.

But hey, its time ally with Iran says Big Guy. Right. So do we then ask Big Guy, which is his country, Iran or Canada?

Its so hard to tell who the good guys are these days.

Yep ever since Hulk Hogan went bad the days of good and bad are just oh so confusing.

Or is it. It doesn' matter what you think if you smell what the Rue is cooking.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Rue

[Argus]

The alternative is strict sanctions and assistance to Iranian opposition until the current regime crumbles and pro Western Iranians can take it back.

Realistically, that's not going to happen. And strict sanctions aren't going to stop them from developing the bomb if they want one either.

[GostHacked]

OK, what would be a "broader" approach? You seem to have no truck with nuclear energy in Japan and plenty of tolerance for it in Iran. Go figure.

I have a problem with nuclear energy and nuclear weapons PERIOD. But the reality is that we have nuclear plants and we have nuclear weapons. That Pandora's Box was opened a long time ago.

The reasons I question nuclear energy is my own personal research into it all after Fukushima. In North America alone, we've experienced at least 8 partial meltdowns in reactors over the past 6+ decades. Ramp that up around the world and we have a serious issue. Things like Chernobyl, and Fukushima are long term problems that wont be solved in our lifetimes.

Now with nuclear weapons, I'd love to see all of them gone. But that is not happening. SO if Israel can have them, Iran can have them. If North Korea can have them, Iran can have them. If anyone can have them, Iran can have them.

Question : If Iran gave up all nuclear ambitions tomorrow, would Israel do the same?

[Rue]

Realistically, that's not going to happen. And strict sanctions aren't going to stop them from developing the bomb if they want one either.

Yes you are right on that, not as long as Obama is in office.

[Rue]

Now with nuclear weapons, I'd love to see all of them gone. But that is not happening. SO if Israel can have them, Iran can have them. If North Korea can have them, Iran can have them. If anyone can have them, Iran can have them.

Question : If Iran gave up all nuclear ambitions tomorrow, would Israel do the same?

As I agreed with the other parts of your statement I can only respond to the above 2 paragraphs.

In regards to the 2nd, no. Israel doesn't have nukes simply because of the threat of Iran. That is a false assumption and premises. Its as false as saying China or Russia should give up their nuclear weapons because Iran would have none.

In regards to your first paragraph for me its not logical. it tries to be but its not. Its not logical to simply say all or none. That is not logic although no doubt you think it sounds fair.

Its not logical or fair. Logic dictates that its not necessarily the weapon, but who has it, A mentally ill man prone to violence is far more dangerous with a knife than you cutting meat for your dinner. Your reasoning ignores reality, risk probability and logic.

Is it fair to say some people should have knives and other should not?

Well if you think its unfair to take a sharp steak knife away from a paranoid schizophrenic well then in your mind it is. In my mind logic dictates some people are more likely to be dangerous than others.

That said is it arbitrary in deciding who is less dangerous. Probably subjective, but not arbitrary. Its a subjective estimate based on the risk probability associated with the governments in power. clearly North Korea, Iran, Pakistan are far more unstable than Britain for example in terms of possessing and therefore being trusted with nuke weapons. I would take the word Britain out and could replace it with China, india, France, Brazil, South Africa and Israel and the US. I would not be so inclined to replace it with Russia though.

I don't trust Putin. He reminds me of Sadaam Hussein, Stalin and Hitler rolled into one. The only thing he is missing is a mustache. He could borrow that from his estranged wife.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Rue

[GostHacked]

As I agreed with the other parts of your statement I can only respond to the above 2 paragraphs.

In regards to the 2nd, no. Israel doesn't have nukes simply because of the threat of Iran. That is a false assumption and premises. Its as false as saying China or Russia should give up their nuclear weapons because Iran would have none.

Nowhere did I say that Israel's nukes were an answer to Iran's. Israel has been suspected of possessing nukes for decades.

So in the end you are making a false assumption on what I posted. Kind of a problem around here.

[jbg]

I think the Democrats have a point in asking what the alternative to some kind of deal is?

Tighten sanctions. Freeze bank accounts. Not allow Iranians to fly into JFK to preen at the U.N. Enforce U.S. laws such as NYC parking tickets if they do have access to the U.N.

[jbg]

I have a problem with nuclear energy and nuclear weapons PERIOD. But the reality is that we have nuclear plants and we have nuclear weapons. That Pandora's Box was opened a long time ago.

The reasons I question nuclear energy is my own personal research into it all after Fukushima. In North America alone, we've experienced at least 8 partial meltdowns in reactors over the past 6+ decades. Ramp that up around the world and we have a serious issue. Things like Chernobyl, and Fukushima are long term problems that wont be solved in our lifetimes.

Now with nuclear weapons, I'd love to see all of them gone. But that is not happening. SO if Israel can have them, Iran can have them. If North Korea can have them, Iran can have them. If anyone can have them, Iran can have them.

Question : If Iran gave up all nuclear ambitions tomorrow, would Israel do the same?

Are Iranian reactors exempt from meltdowns?

[On Guard for Thee]

Are Iranian reactors exempt from meltdowns?

Absolutely.

[Rue]

I made no false assumption Ghost. Stop wiggling. You stated among other things: If Israel has nuclear weapons Iran can have them.

That necessarily raises the issue I addressed as well as the other issue because its called a quid quo pro argument.

So I addressed all the components of a quid pro quo argument.

Yah I know you don't speak Latin.

Here let me explain, you necessarily linked the right to nuclear arms on the argument if Israel has them then Iran must. You wrote that Ghost not me.

You linked Israel to Iran in terms of mutual right to have nukes.

That necessarily raises the two issues I addressed not just the one you think I should have responded to.

All you had to do is clarify that the first issue I raised was not your position.

I did not assume or infer anything. If you want to make a tit for tat argument (that's what quid pro quo means) and not clarify clearly what your position is I can not assume you only limit it to one not both issues.

Write more clearly and finish your thought or position so that your ambiguity is not misunderstood. Don't come back to me after I argue down a position you have no further response to and take the position you never raised it. Its pointless. don't start something you don't want to finish or think through.

The point is and I made it, and you have not countered it, simply arguing if A has a gun, B should makes no logical sense.

Your equation that 1 + 1 = 2 was defective from the get go because you were not adding 1 + 1. You were not dealing with 2 equal components when you made the assumptions you did that they are all the same to start with, so should be treated the same, and that was the necessary and therefore defective assumption in your position.

I did not assume the government of Iran or North Korea is the same as France or Britain-you do in your scenario. You believe the only requirement for having a nuclear weapon is that since some have them, everyone should have them.

Using your ridiculous argument, the entire world's nations should have them. Why stop at Iran.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Rue

[GostHacked]

I made no false assumption Ghost. Stop wiggling. You stated among other things: If Israel has nuclear weapons Iran can have them.

I did say if Israel CAN have them, Iran CAN have them. You make false assumptions all the time.

[Rue]

Sure I do or you could be back tracking. You go with your theory, me with mine.

By the way getting back to the thread, President Obama lectured NATO, Britain, France, Israel, the world, on how successful his anti terrorist strategy was in Yemen and how it showed he knew how to handle issues in the Middle East.

I believe some one on this board in another thread referred to him as being "a little bit smarter" than say Bush Jr.

Well once again his policy on terrorism in Yemen, like his policy in Iraq, Syria, Libya, has blown up in his face showing what a complete an utter

moron and incompetent he is.

How about all the people suddenly supporting this man as he has now come out of the closet, the coward he is, with one year to go in office to show

his true colours, and comment on how this idiot, this complete incompetent moron, should be the on lecturing the world on how to deal with Iran.

Everything this man has done in office in foreign policy has proven disasterous. He is the worst foreign policy President in US history.

What a joke he was conferred the Nobel peace prize for having done nothing but get elected eight years ago. What a collosal farse an award was given to a man so full of it, so petulant, so incompetent.

[Big Guy]

Yemen continues to disintegrate with all factions looking to fill any temporary or long term power voids. Readers who are interested in the situation on the ground might be further enlightened by the map located within :

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/arabia-ready-measures-yemen-150323162415124.html

It is interesting to see the placement of government, Houthi, Al Qaeda and combinations of those forces. Saudi Arabia is getting very nervous about the situation there and any possible involvement of ISIS through Al Qaeda and/or Houthi involvement.

Yemen had been a very important American base in the region.

[Big Guy]

In case anyone wonders where these bad rebels (tough to identify if they are Al Qaeda, Sunni, Shia, ISIS, pro-American, anti-American etc) in the region are getting their armaments;

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/24/millions-in-u-s-military-equipment-lost-as-yemen-heads-down-syrias-path/

God Bless America!

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems fair to me...where did Canada get F-18s and laser guided bombs ?

[Big Guy]

Things are certainly getting clearer of who is fighting who in Yemen:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/03/military-action-yemen-150326143748798.html

I am surprised that Canada has not yet joined this ...

[Shady]

It is official, ISIS or Al Qaeda or a combination of both is now in control of Yemen;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/03/evacuates-100-special-forces-yemen-airbase-150321160333019.html

What were 100 US special forces and a whole bunch of American drones doing in Yemen anyway?

So now we can bomb ISIS in Iraq, Syria (if Assad asks us to) and Yemen.

I remember the president of the USA calling ISIS a "junior varsity" team. Well this JV team, with the support of the local Sunnis looks like it might win this tournament.

When was the last time a JV team won the NCAA championship?

I don't think it's ISIS or Al Qaeda, it's a Iranian backed and funded militia.

[GostHacked]

I don't think it's ISIS or Al Qaeda, it's a Iranian backed and funded militia.

Actually Iranian militias are fighting along side Iraqi and NATO forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/iraq-islamic-state-tikrit-united-states-airstrikes.html?_r=0

The United States has struggled to maintain influence in Iraq, even as Iran has helped direct the war on the ground against the Islamic State. But as the struggles to take Tikrit mounted, with a small band of Islamic State militants holding out against a combined Iraqi force of more than 30,000 for weeks, American officials saw a chance not only to turn the momentum against the Islamic State but to gain an edge against the Iranians.

Even when Iran tries to help Iraq (and to an extent they help the USA), the USA wants to use it against them. All other articles I pull up regarding this show that Iran is helping Iraq to push back ISIS. So if this ISIS crap is not coming from Iran, where IS it coming from?

I think the Saudi's need to be put under the microscope. But that won't happen, wonder why.

[Shady]

Actually Iranian militias are fighting along side Iraqi and NATO forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/iraq-islamic-state-tikrit-united-states-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Even when Iran tries to help Iraq (and to an extent they help the USA), the USA wants to use it against them. All other articles I pull up regarding this show that Iran is helping Iraq to push back ISIS. So if this ISIS crap is not coming from Iran, where IS it coming from?

I think the Saudi's need to be put under the microscope. But that won't happen, wonder why.

I'm referring to the rebels in Yemen. They're backed and funded by Iran.

[GostHacked]

I'm referring to the rebels in Yemen. They're backed and funded by Iran.

I believe Saudi Arabia has more to do with this than Iran. Something else is going on that none of us are seeing. But the US fights WITH Iran in Iraq, against them in Yemen and Syria (also against the Russians like in Ukraine)

Yemen won't be the last. This will spread and become global within a couple years.

[Rue]

That is the point Ghost the flippity floppity of the US foreign policy. hat flippity floppity is classic failed Barry Obama foreign policy.

Never in the history of US foreign policy has someone been such an idiot and failed to understand the basic rule that the enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy.

He was warned repeatedly by German, Israeli,Egyptian, intelligence agencies not to take sides and not to arm either Sunni or Shiite extremists and he ignored his allies and will leave as his legacy in foreign policy the creation of a leadership vacuum leading to permanent instability and civil war in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Ukraine.

Nobel peace prize winner. Right.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Everyone is flip flopping, and I can't trust any of them. The US, Israel, Russia, Iran, ect ect .. all of them hypocritical in action and rhetoric.

[Shady]

I believe Saudi Arabia has more to do with this than Iran.

No, Saudi Arabia is just responding to the overthrow of the Yemen government. Iran is backing and funding the militia that's responsible. Why can't you accept that? Why do you always give Iran a pass? So if the CIA funds something, you really take offense to it. But when Iran does it, you make every excuse in the book to give them a pass. You're a complete and utter hypocrite.