217
“A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty”: Biden Becomes Fourth U.S. President to Bomb Yemen
(www.democracynow.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
217 points (82.4% liked)
World News
32353 readers
247 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They got a pass for taking pot shots at Israel, because that's an internal regional conflict. Shooting at civilian trade ships in one of the most important shipping lanes on the planet is a completely different thing. We're not watching gas prices skyrocket, a resurgent Russia, a global economic downturn, etc. just because some religious fanatics are throwing a temper tantrum.
The Houthis were warned repeatedly to cut that shit out, and they didn't listen. These are the consequences.
As Germany and Japan can tell you, "Don't fuck with the boats"
All civilian trade ships are fired upon when they attempt to violate a blockade. Europe does it, Israel does it, the US does it. It's how blockades work.
Will it effect international trade? Yes. So maybe the USA should have considered that before ruining relationships by attempting to maintain white dominance on the region. Oh right. They did consider it. And then realized they could just bomb everyone to get their way. And now, the West is experiencing the consequences of their violence - shipping delays.
Except the Houthis aren't just attacking ships docking in Israel. They have been attacking any ship to the point that shipping companies have stopped using the canal.
And a blockade is an act of war. People subject to blockades have the international right to fight back.
There was news coming out today from Bloomberg that some oil tankers stopped using the Suez only following the US-UK airstrikes on Yemen.
Look at an AIS map like vesselfinder. The Sentosa 66 (Suez -> Pakistan) and the Scarlet Robin (Suez -> China) will both be passing the Bab-el-Mandeb heading towards Asia. The Buffalo (Singapore -> Suez) and the Fighter Two (India -> Suez) both passed the Bab-el-Mandeb heading towards the Suez.
Except that the issue wasn't with oil tankers, but with container ships. Before the US-UK attacks, most container shipping companies stopped using the Suez Canal.
It isn't just oil that goes through that canal.
The Flying Fish 1 container ship from Malaysia to unknown (but just passed Bab-el-Mandeb). The COSCO Shengshi vehicle carrier from the Suez to Malaysia. The Zhong Gu Nan Hai container ship from the Suez to India.
Again, I'd recommend you look at a free AIS map if you'd like to learn more. There was another recent story that come out showing that some ships are declaring "CHINESE VESSEL AND CREW" on AIS to stay safe. In contrast, this is what turning off AIS means:
I haven't that all ships have stopped using it, but a significant about have far beyond the affect of trading with Israel.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/container-rates-soar-concerns-prolonged-red-sea-disruption-2024-01-12/
Many shipping companies have shifted operations and the cost of shipping from China to Europe has increased in China. The presence of ships without an analysis of shipping over time from before the attacks doesn't mean shipping lanes are open to everyone but Israel.
That was the claim you made. It's absolutely true that shipping companies with ties to Israel have ceased to transit the Bab-el-Mandeb, but, for example, COSCO recently sent a ship through and was not attacked because they have ceased all shipments to Israel.
Edit: A number of ships were turning off AIS before transiting the Bab-el-Mandeb early in the conflict. See my comment above to learn more about why that's usually not the best idea.
Maersk is Danish.
A lot of companies have ties to Israel. Comes with globalization.
let me guess... unless they're Palestinians, right?
No, this includes Palestine.
Ansar Allah have said explicitly that they are attempting to enforce a Naval blockade in the Red Sea against Israel. They have also stated that they believe under international law they are obligated to do whatever they can to prevent genocide.
I don’t see any reason why they can’t be negotiated with. Calling them “religious fanatics” that are “throwing a temper tantrum” is just a silly way to dismiss non violent solutions to the conflict.
Biden’s decision to threaten and subsequently bomb them is just plain arrogant belligerence. The US backed campaign to bomb and starve out the Houthis didn’t work previously so why does Biden think it’ll work now?
Firstly, the Houthi flag includes the words, “Death to America.” These are not rational actors. They are fanatic jihadis and all attempts to reason with them have failed. Acting like the Houthis are the same as a regular nation state is borderline intellectually dishonest.
If they have a problem with Israel, keep firing at Israel. If they want a problem with the rest of the world, keep firing at our CIVILIAN ships. Firing at those ships is an act of war, and it was going to provoke a response.
Biden waited a very long time to act, which emboldened Iran to take an oil tanker. That move virtually guaranteed a response, and it’s good that the response was limited to Yemen. Biden is playing the cards he’s been dealt, and he’s playing them reasonably.
Also, it should be mentioned that the Houthis themselves said the casualties were ~5 dead and 6 wounded. Warming was given far in advance so they could evacuate and minimize casualties. If Biden had wanted to play dirtier, he could have. A deliberate decision was made to minimize civilian casualties. If the positions were reversed, the Houthis would nuke Tel Aviv, DC, and every other major city in both the US and Israel.
Surely that would only make sense if America had a history of funding coups, arming terrorists, overthrowing governments and indiscriminately bombing the region right?
Fortunately that’s not the case so the Houthis are clearly just insane. That is a much easier explanation.
You do realize that the US supported a campaign of bombing and a blockade against Yemen for the better part of the past decade? It’s not irrational of them to hate the US. They certainly aren’t more or less religious fanatics than Israel or the Christian Zionists in the US that support Israel.
The world would be a great place if everyone behaved rationally. It’s sad that they don’t.
Why is it that every time that you're confronted with information that proves you wrong you always just pivot back to
"Well what does it matter anyway, America is worse"?
I explained why the Houthis have reason to hate the US after their hate was cited as a reason why they must be irrational. That’s not a pivot. It’s a very direct response. You should work on your reading comprehension.
20 years of bombing as the title of this thread implies is probably the cause they are angry with america. Ironically by taking position against israel genocide they are doing more than the west at preventing fanaticism as it has been said over and over that the indiscriminate bombing of gaza can only breed more terrorists. Whoever leads them is probably a scummy individual but just as much as Biden or the other 3 presidents that bombed them.
Marg bar amrika
You're more mad about the treats getting delayed than the genocide our government is enabling.
Their country has been fucked up by said parties. It has nothing to do with religion.
You're comparing someone who fights back against a bully and then says he would be even worse than the bully if he were in that position.
The Houthis are the ones attacking civilians and American warships alike. The international community tried to get them to stop for months before resorting to retaliation.
So how does bombing them change any of that? Their immediate demands are that Israel ends their genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. If Israel complies and the Houthis continue their attacks the world is still better off so why not try that before resorting to violence?