Oh yeah, nice success story in Yemen.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I think that confirms what I said.

[Strychnine 1,802]

The Houthis, who practice Shiite Islam and reportedly are funded by Iran, are also enemies of AQAP but have publicly expressed opposition to U.S. drone strikes against AQAP. However, the Houthis have as yet made no moves to stop the drone strikes.

Earnest said that U.S. military personnel were still on the ground in Yemen and "are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counter-terrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world." http://www.military....evacuation.html So hopefully, despite a change in whatever rule in Yemen, we can continue our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen.

I am interested in seeing how this develops. A Shiite government hostile to a Sunni extremist organization could go a long way toward driving them out.

[AUUSN 823]

I think that confirms what I said.

Really? I disagree. What about the part where you stated emphatically that "CENTCOM was pissed with Dos?"

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Look....I'm not going to debate it anymore. Get the Stry Spirit!!!!

[AUUSN 823]

The Houthis, who practice Shiite Islam and reportedly are funded by Iran, are also enemies of AQAP but have publicly expressed opposition to U.S. drone strikes against AQAP. However, the Houthis have as yet made no moves to stop the drone strikes.

Earnest said that U.S. military personnel were still on the ground in Yemen and "are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counter-terrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world." http://www.military....evacuation.html So hopefully, despite a change in whatever rule in Yemen, we can continue our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen.

I am interested in seeing how this develops. A Shiite government hostile to a Sunni extremist organization could go a long way toward driving them out.

It is. Our main goal is to kill AQAP leaders. Getting involved with Iranian proxies and military coups is not in our interests. That was my issue with this thread all along. We get these cute thread titles like 'Oh yeah, nice success story in Yemen' without any understanding of the actual goal in Yemen. People have this one size fits all mentality as it relates to counterterrorism when the opposite is true. Each region and group must be handled differently.

[AUUSN 823]

Look....I'm not going to debate it anymore. Get the Stry Spirit!!!!

Nope, I participate in this forum to debate. I won't engage you as long as you don't post wildly accusatory comments without factual background.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Thank you for taking stry's advice and being the bigger man PT. Well done sir!

[AUUSN 823]

Thank you for taking stry's advice and being the bigger man PT. Well done sir!

Nice jab. I am not going to let comments about my military go unchallenged. You don't want me commenting, don't make threads about military matters. Sorry to be a jerk about it but that's how I feel.

[Strychnine 1,802]

The Houthis, who practice Shiite Islam and reportedly are funded by Iran, are also enemies of AQAP but have publicly expressed opposition to U.S. drone strikes against AQAP. However, the Houthis have as yet made no moves to stop the drone strikes.

Earnest said that U.S. military personnel were still on the ground in Yemen and "are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counter-terrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world." http://www.military....evacuation.html So hopefully, despite a change in whatever rule in Yemen, we can continue our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen.

I am interested in seeing how this develops. A Shiite government hostile to a Sunni extremist organization could go a long way toward driving them out.

It is. Our main goal is to kill AQAP leaders. Getting involved with Iranian proxies and military coups is not in our interests. That was my issue with this thread all along. We get these cute thread titles like 'Oh yeah, nice success story in Yemen' without any understanding of the actual goal in Yemen. People have this one size fits all mentality as it relates to counterterrorism when the opposite is true. Each region and group must be handled differently.

Oddly, it is also one of the reasons that I have thought our negotiations with Iran are ultimately a good thing. While Iran has supported AQ in Syria, they disagree vehemently with their ideology. That support is merely a means to an end. Severing that support (Hamas and Hezbollah are a completely different animal) is certainly a condition that we have for progress in normalization, and one Iran is likely to meet. Iran is the biggest open agitator in the region. Better relations with them is more likely to curtail that than continuing the hostile relations we have had with them throughout my lifetime.

[AUUSN 823]

The Houthis, who practice Shiite Islam and reportedly are funded by Iran, are also enemies of AQAP but have publicly expressed opposition to U.S. drone strikes against AQAP. However, the Houthis have as yet made no moves to stop the drone strikes.

Earnest said that U.S. military personnel were still on the ground in Yemen and "are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counter-terrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world." http://www.military....evacuation.html So hopefully, despite a change in whatever rule in Yemen, we can continue our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen.

I am interested in seeing how this develops. A Shiite government hostile to a Sunni extremist organization could go a long way toward driving them out.

It is. Our main goal is to kill AQAP leaders. Getting involved with Iranian proxies and military coups is not in our interests. That was my issue with this thread all along. We get these cute thread titles like 'Oh yeah, nice success story in Yemen' without any understanding of the actual goal in Yemen. People have this one size fits all mentality as it relates to counterterrorism when the opposite is true. Each region and group must be handled differently.

Oddly, it is also one of the reasons that I have thought our negotiations with Iran are ultimately a good thing. While Iran has supported AQ in Syria, they disagree vehemently with their ideology. That support is merely a means to an end. Severing that support (Hamas and Hezbollah are a completely different animal) is certainly a condition that we have for progress in normalization, and one Iran is likely to meet. Iran is the biggest open agitator in the region. Better relations with them is more likely to curtail that than continuing the hostile relations we have had with them throughout my lifetime.

I concur but it's a hard pill for me to swallow knowing their actions in Southern Iraq fomenting the Shia insurgency Jaish al Madi and their leader Al Sadr and their actions in introducing the EFP IED rounds that decimated our troops. But it's a new day and we have new agendas.

[Strychnine 1,802]

The Houthis, who practice Shiite Islam and reportedly are funded by Iran, are also enemies of AQAP but have publicly expressed opposition to U.S. drone strikes against AQAP. However, the Houthis have as yet made no moves to stop the drone strikes.

Earnest said that U.S. military personnel were still on the ground in Yemen and "are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counter-terrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world." http://www.military....evacuation.html So hopefully, despite a change in whatever rule in Yemen, we can continue our counterterrorism efforts in Yemen.

I am interested in seeing how this develops. A Shiite government hostile to a Sunni extremist organization could go a long way toward driving them out.

It is. Our main goal is to kill AQAP leaders. Getting involved with Iranian proxies and military coups is not in our interests. That was my issue with this thread all along. We get these cute thread titles like 'Oh yeah, nice success story in Yemen' without any understanding of the actual goal in Yemen. People have this one size fits all mentality as it relates to counterterrorism when the opposite is true. Each region and group must be handled differently.

Oddly, it is also one of the reasons that I have thought our negotiations with Iran are ultimately a good thing. While Iran has supported AQ in Syria, they disagree vehemently with their ideology. That support is merely a means to an end. Severing that support (Hamas and Hezbollah are a completely different animal) is certainly a condition that we have for progress in normalization, and one Iran is likely to meet. Iran is the biggest open agitator in the region. Better relations with them is more likely to curtail that than continuing the hostile relations we have had with them throughout my lifetime.

I concur but it's a hard pill for me to swallow knowing their actions in Southern Iraq fomenting the Shia insurgency Jaish al Madi and their leader Al Sadr and their actions in introducing the EFP IED rounds that decimated our troops. But it's a new day and we have new agendas.

I do not disagree at all, and I know no apology will be forthcoming from them. That said, I understand their motives in it. They have considered us an enemy for a long time (and treated us as such), as we have considered them one. As long as that remains the case, their actions will never change.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Thank you for taking stry's advice and being the bigger man PT. Well done sir!

Nice jab. I am not going to let comments about my military go unchallenged. You don't want me commenting, don't make threads about military matters. Sorry to be a jerk about it but that's how I feel.

You do realize you have the same opportunity right?

[AUUSN 823]

Thank you for taking stry's advice and being the bigger man PT. Well done sir!

Nice jab. I am not going to let comments about my military go unchallenged. You don't want me commenting, don't make threads about military matters. Sorry to be a jerk about it but that's how I feel.

You do realize you have the same opportunity right?

Let it go. I will not make amends with someone like him. Someone who constantly attacked my integrity and service as well as openly stated he had someone in intelligence check me out will not get kindness from me. Call me petty if you wish, I don't care.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Well there you go Stry. What say ye now?

[Strychnine 1,802]

Well there you go Stry. What say ye now?

Hey, I never claimed it wasn't naively optimistic on my part.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I understand. Nice try though. I will try to hold up my end.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Thank you for taking stry's advice and being the bigger man PT. Well done sir!

Nice jab. I am not going to let comments about my military go unchallenged. You don't want me commenting, don't make threads about military matters. Sorry to be a jerk about it but that's how I feel.

You do realize you have the same opportunity right?

Let it go. I will not make amends with someone like him. Someone who constantly attacked my integrity and service as well as openly stated he had someone in intelligence check me out will not get kindness from me. Call me petty if you wish, I don't care.

I am not willing to let it go at this point. There is still hope for you!

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I didn't call it BS. You did. So prove my BS wrong.

Mims raises a good question. Yuu post a lot so why not share your answer with all of us.

Uhhh, it doesn't work that PT. :-\

He who makes a specific claim has the onus of referencing or proving it. If you can't do that, you are either pulling it out of your ass or passing along heresay.

What if that heresay is from a secret source in the Pentagon for example? You'd actually expect someone to give up the name? Seriously? Good luck with that!

[AUUSN 823]

I didn't call it BS. You did. So prove my BS wrong.

Mims raises a good question. Yuu post a lot so why not share your answer with all of us.

Uhhh, it doesn't work that PT. :-\

He who makes a specific claim has the onus of referencing or proving it. If you can't do that, you are either pulling it out of your ass or passing along heresay.

What if that heresay is from a secret source in the Pentagon for example? You'd actually expect someone to give up the name? Seriously? Good luck with that!

Then that person needs to be prosecuted for discussing classified information with someone who doesnt have the need to know.

[homersapien 11,373]

I didn't call it BS. You did. So prove my BS wrong.

Mims raises a good question. Yuu post a lot so why not share your answer with all of us.

Uhhh, it doesn't work that PT. :-\

He who makes a specific claim has the onus of referencing or proving it. If you can't do that, you are either pulling it out of your ass or passing along heresay.

What if that heresay is from a secret source in the Pentagon for example? You'd actually expect someone to give up the name? Seriously? Good luck with that!

Does PT have secret sources in the Pentagon?

Cause, my secret sources there tell me he's full of s***.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

I didn't call it BS. You did. So prove my BS wrong.

Mims raises a good question. Yuu post a lot so why not share your answer with all of us.

Uhhh, it doesn't work that PT. :-\

He who makes a specific claim has the onus of referencing or proving it. If you can't do that, you are either pulling it out of your ass or passing along heresay.

What if that heresay is from a secret source in the Pentagon for example? You'd actually expect someone to give up the name? Seriously? Good luck with that!

Does PT have secret sources in the Pentagon?

Cause, my secret sources there tell me he's full of s***.

Well I didn't say he did. I clearly stated for example. And I wasn't referencing PT. This was about your perceived forum rule. In my opinion there are exceptions. That's all.

[homersapien 11,373]

I didn't call it BS. You did. So prove my BS wrong.

Mims raises a good question. Yuu post a lot so why not share your answer with all of us.

Uhhh, it doesn't work that PT. :-\

He who makes a specific claim has the onus of referencing or proving it. If you can't do that, you are either pulling it out of your ass or passing along heresay.

What if that heresay is from a secret source in the Pentagon for example? You'd actually expect someone to give up the name? Seriously? Good luck with that!

Does PT have secret sources in the Pentagon?

Cause, my secret sources there tell me he's full of s***.

Well I didn't say he did. I clearly stated for example. And I wasn't referencing PT. This was about your perceived forum rule. In my opinion there are exceptions. That's all.

Seriously?

[AUUSN 823]

Oh no! Looks like drone strikes continue and our couterterrorism operations in Yemen marches on. The faux conservatives will be so disappointed.

U.S. drone attack in Yemen kills al-Qaeda suspects

A U.S. drone attack in Yemen killed four suspected al-Qaeda militants on Saturday in the southern province of Shabwa, local Yemeni security officials told Reuters .

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is considered one of the most powerful branches of the global militant group and claimed responsibility for deadly shootings in Paris on Jan. 7.

The attack targeted militants traveling in two vehicles in the Bihan region of Shabwa province, a local security official said, adding that several other suspected militants were injured.

For years, the United States has cooperated with Yemeni security forces to track and bomb AQAP members - a strategy that rights groups have criticized for causing repeated civilian deaths.

The United States and its allies in the region have long worried that Yemen's political instability could allow AQAP to flourish and launch attacks overseas. Nineteen U.S. drone strikes killed 124 militants and four civilians in Yemen in 2014, according to the New America Foundation, which maintains a database of drone operations. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/28/U-S-drone-attack-in-Yemen-kills-al-Qaeda-suspects.html?utm_content=bufferae790&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[cooltigger21 0]

Do you really think they are going to get a deal with Iran? Really?

Sure they will. Iran will get everything they want and we'll declare it a great success.

[aubfaninga 16]

Do you really think they are going to get a deal with Iran? Really?

Sure they will. Iran will get everything they want and we'll declare it a great success.

So Iran will agree to have international monitors keeping a close eye on their Nuclear facilities?