47
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 04 Mar 2024
47 points (89.8% liked)
World News
37055 readers
626 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
I'm referring to US doing strikes in Yemen, this is nothing new and this strategy showed no results over past 8 years. No reason to expect anything different going forward.
Right, you're talking about who lasts longer? I thought you were talking about the no impact thing and was confused.
It's both, Yemenis have shown that they've been able to last for 8 years without any clear impact from the bombing strategy. The impact from Yemeni blockade is visible, we see economic costs for the west. The impact from bombing in terms of Yemen being able to pursue its policies is not clear because we don't see their policies change or become less effective.
So when you meant no impact you were thinking of in the way that if they can still shoot missiles that means there has been no impact?
Right, I'm saying the strikes are not achieving a change in behavior or capability. So, there is no impact in terms of what Yemen is doing whether US carries strikes out or not.
I guess I thought you meant the strikes were having no impact as in genuinely zero impact
I mean, I'm sure they're having impact killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in Yemen.
Missile firing infrastructure and capability is sorta the target. Luckily first civilian death was just yesterday and so far I think that's the only one.
If missile firing infrastructure is the target, then it's pretty clear that US is not capable of doing any meaningful damage to this infrastructure. Again, the original point was that US is unable to achieve its stated goals while Yemen is.
Yes, I just misunderstood it as a more literal "no impact" than what you were saying.