Saudis Launch Airstrikes Against Yemen

[AURaptor 1,122]

Oh, and the exasperation voiced by the reporter proves my point.

He noticed the distinctions that were being made between Yemen and the policy and it wasn't what he was trying to get them to admit too.

Which is really pretty stupid when you stop and think about it. It was a begging-the-question-tactic to begin with. What did he expect to hear?

The TRUTH ?

[AURaptor 1,122]

President Obama has authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to a Saudi air offensive against rebels in Yemen, the White House said late Wednesday.

"While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a joint planning cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support," National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/h...trikes-in-yemen

More " me too ! me too !" leading from behind by the admin.

[AUUSN 823]

President Obama has authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to a Saudi air offensive against rebels in Yemen, the White House said late Wednesday.

"While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a joint planning cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support," National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said in a statement.

http://thehill.com/h...trikes-in-yemen

More " me too ! me too !" leading from behind by the admin.

Your Benevolent Hegemony is showing....

[AURaptor 1,122]

What if we had zero to do w/ SA's actions ?

Hegemony ? Quite the opposite.

[AUUSN 823]

The ME needs to figure this out. We will support where we can but the time has come for them to ride their bike without the training wheels. Chicken hawks need to stand down...

[AURaptor 1,122]

The ME needs to figure this out. We will support where we can but the time has come for them to ride their bike without the training wheels. Chicken hawks need to stand down...

Obama needs to stop trying to ride the coat tails of those who actually do something about the Islamic terrorist.

[japantiger 4,051]

You are also missing the point made by the spokesman in the press conference.

What I heard is that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model to apply generally. Strengthen the central government and allow them to take the fight to terrorists. That certainly seems to be a better strategy than direct intervention. So the literal truth is the model that has been used in Yemen is still the strategy. The spokesman said that as well as acknowledging things hadn't gone so well in Yemen regarding strengthening the central government.

If you go back and listen carefully, you will see that. It's the reporter who keeps positioning the question as Yemen as the model instead of the strategy as the model. So maybe you should try listening more carefully sometime.

The current struggle in Yemen is over who will take over and represent the central government. My understanding is that there are still elements of the government in place with allegiance to the former president (the guy trying to re-take power). FWIW - which may not be much - he has also been pro-American in the past.

Regardless, what was the spokesman supposed to say if the strategy used in Yemen is still the best strategy for us to assume? It has failed in Yemen so we are abandoning that approach?

This is being spun like Obama refuses to admit our efforts in Yemen have failed because we were doing the wrong thing. That's not the case. Yemen may fail, but it's not because we were doing the wrong things there.

Did you read/listen to either of the PBS segments I linked for you?

Stop spinning, Homie. You'll make yourself sick. Taking the spokesman's twist of things as being the straight forward truth and then trying to claim the REPORTERS are the ones who are spinning here is a clear indication that YOU are the one not listening. The video is a short segment of a line of questioning and an ongoing discussion that's been between reporters and the WH for some time now. It all comes down to the simple fact that THIS WH refuses to acknowledge basic truths, and you can , if YOU listen carefully, hear the exasperation in the reporters voices. Even they , who have been all but blind lackeys to Obama, cannot believe what they are hearing.

Seems you do.

I am totally not interested in going back and forth if we don't agree on the facts. So let's just stick to them, since they are still there to examine.

Go back to the video and starting at about 0:19 listen very, very carefully through the rest of the video.

You will discover the reporter is asking a slightly different question from what the spokesman is responding to. The reporter is trying to phrase it as Yemen itself was the model and it failed. The spokesman is explaining that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model even though it has fallen short in Yemen in terms of consolidating a central government.

Furthermore, he implied that some of the anti-terror organization still exists in Yemen and is operative. If so, it may give us a conduit of influence with the next guy. From what little I have heard, this is not yet a sectarian or civil war.

So it may be premature to write Yemen off as a total failure. But even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy was flawed.

Perhaps the facts are too subtle for you to grasp, which would explain a lot. Or maybe you just think it's too subtle to matter.

No doubt those more interested in trying to hang something around Obama's neck are much more invested in the "Yemen symbolizes Obama's ME strategy". I'm pretty sure you are in that category.

So, why does he think the "model" is a success if it failed the guy we were backing and the loons are now running the asylum? If I were a ME despot in another country looking for help from the US, I think I'd say give me another model.

[japantiger 4,051]

What if we had zero to do w/ SA's actions ?

Hegemony ? Quite the opposite.

The White House as usual claimed they found out about the Saudi Air campaign in the newspaper.

[alexava 6,973]

The op says SA strikes "against Yemen ". Is it really against Yemen or the multiple rebel forces trying to take control of Yemen? Sounds a lot like Syria. It's hard to find enough good guys to help. Maybe why your policy is to stay tf away. The entire ME is war happy. They want to fight each other constantly. The only thing they have in common is they all hate Israel equally.

[AURaptor 1,122]

What if we had zero to do w/ SA's actions ?

Hegemony ? Quite the opposite.

The White House as usual claimed they found out about the Saudi Air campaign in the newspaper.

Boom.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Raptor.....right. A Saudi official said today that they did not tell Obama in advance of their bombing in Yemen because of our current discussions with Iran. He said "these days it is sometimes more dangerous to be friends with the U.S. than to be enemies. If that isn't slinging poo at Obama I don't know what you call it. And so much for the avowed cooperation with the Saudis one poster above claims.

[AUUSN 823]

Raptor.....right. A Saudi official said today that they did not tell Obama in advance of their bombing in Yemen because of our current discussions with Iran. He said "these days it is sometimes more dangerous to be friends with the U.S. than to be enemies. If that isn't slinging poo at Obama I don't know what you call it. And so much for the avowed cooperation with the Saudis one poster above claims.

I provided a link. You provide idiocy..

[aubfaninga 16]

You are also missing the point made by the spokesman in the press conference.

What I heard is that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model to apply generally. Strengthen the central government and allow them to take the fight to terrorists. That certainly seems to be a better strategy than direct intervention. So the literal truth is the model that has been used in Yemen is still the strategy. The spokesman said that as well as acknowledging things hadn't gone so well in Yemen regarding strengthening the central government.

If you go back and listen carefully, you will see that. It's the reporter who keeps positioning the question as Yemen as the model instead of the strategy as the model. So maybe you should try listening more carefully sometime.

The current struggle in Yemen is over who will take over and represent the central government. My understanding is that there are still elements of the government in place with allegiance to the former president (the guy trying to re-take power). FWIW - which may not be much - he has also been pro-American in the past.

Regardless, what was the spokesman supposed to say if the strategy used in Yemen is still the best strategy for us to assume? It has failed in Yemen so we are abandoning that approach?

This is being spun like Obama refuses to admit our efforts in Yemen have failed because we were doing the wrong thing. That's not the case. Yemen may fail, but it's not because we were doing the wrong things there.

Did you read/listen to either of the PBS segments I linked for you?

Stop spinning, Homie. You'll make yourself sick. Taking the spokesman's twist of things as being the straight forward truth and then trying to claim the REPORTERS are the ones who are spinning here is a clear indication that YOU are the one not listening. The video is a short segment of a line of questioning and an ongoing discussion that's been between reporters and the WH for some time now. It all comes down to the simple fact that THIS WH refuses to acknowledge basic truths, and you can , if YOU listen carefully, hear the exasperation in the reporters voices. Even they , who have been all but blind lackeys to Obama, cannot believe what they are hearing.

Seems you do.

I am totally not interested in going back and forth if we don't agree on the facts. So let's just stick to them, since they are still there to examine.

Go back to the video and starting at about 0:19 listen very, very carefully through the rest of the video.

You will discover the reporter is asking a slightly different question from what the spokesman is responding to. The reporter is trying to phrase it as Yemen itself was the model and it failed. The spokesman is explaining that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model even though it has fallen short in Yemen in terms of consolidating a central government.

Furthermore, he implied that some of the anti-terror organization still exists in Yemen and is operative. If so, it may give us a conduit of influence with the next guy. From what little I have heard, this is not yet a sectarian or civil war.

So it may be premature to write Yemen off as a total failure. But even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy was flawed.

Perhaps the facts are too subtle for you to grasp, which would explain a lot. Or maybe you just think it's too subtle to matter.

No doubt those more interested in trying to hang something around Obama's neck are much more invested in the "Yemen symbolizes Obama's ME strategy". I'm pretty sure you are in that category.

So, why does he think the "model" is a success if it failed the guy we were backing and the loons are now running the asylum? If I were a ME despot in another country looking for help from the US, I think I'd say give me another model.

Please correct my understanding if I am off. My understanding from a simple mind.

The "model" is how to combat terrorism by simply supporting countries in the ME without boots on the ground. In this case(Yemen) the focus was Al-Queda, specifically AQAP. I am I wrong so far???

From all the information that I can find the "model" was positive in fighting AQAP. They are weaker now than they were and up until Yemen as a nation failed AQAP had been put in a defensive posture rather than offensive. Is this a fair assessment so far?

The "model" involved nothing to prop Yemen up as a nation. We were not there to bail there economy out, rebuild there infrastructure, or even help the acting government stay in place by removing there opposition. Is this correct?

To the best of my knowledge you have basically 3(I know it's more complicated but making this simple) different enemies all against each other in Yemen. The "model" was focused on AQAP. We were not targeting the Houthi leadership despite them being at odds with the government we were helping fight AQAP. The Houthi leadership as a whole is definitely not a "friend" to the U.S. but even if they took full control and was the governing body they would welcome help from the "model" because they want to wipe AQAP out of the area more than we do.

The U.S. has no interest in nation building at this point. We want AQAP gone. Everyone else in that region does too.

Now the part of nation building and keeping stability in Yemen is the ME's problem to deal with. Egypt apparently is another nation that does not want the Houthi to take control. Good for them.

What did I miss?

[alexava 6,973]

Simple, isn't it.

[aubfaninga 16]

Simple, isn't it.

I try to watch videos and read articles about the ME without focusing on anything Islam and it actually gets more confusing.

Seeing the ME thru lens of religion is an easy but useless way of seeing the complexity of that region.

This is some "Hatfield and Mccoys" stuff on a much larger scale, over a greater period of time, involving way more parties and moving parts.

The more I dig into the garbage the more I am seeing that Religion is nothing more than a way to circle wagons. The problem is the wagon circles sometimes cross paths.

My head hurts

[WarTim 3,456]

You are also missing the point made by the spokesman in the press conference.

What I heard is that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model to apply generally. Strengthen the central government and allow them to take the fight to terrorists. That certainly seems to be a better strategy than direct intervention. So the literal truth is the model that has been used in Yemen is still the strategy. The spokesman said that as well as acknowledging things hadn't gone so well in Yemen regarding strengthening the central government.

If you go back and listen carefully, you will see that. It's the reporter who keeps positioning the question as Yemen as the model instead of the strategy as the model. So maybe you should try listening more carefully sometime.

The current struggle in Yemen is over who will take over and represent the central government. My understanding is that there are still elements of the government in place with allegiance to the former president (the guy trying to re-take power). FWIW - which may not be much - he has also been pro-American in the past.

Regardless, what was the spokesman supposed to say if the strategy used in Yemen is still the best strategy for us to assume? It has failed in Yemen so we are abandoning that approach?

This is being spun like Obama refuses to admit our efforts in Yemen have failed because we were doing the wrong thing. That's not the case. Yemen may fail, but it's not because we were doing the wrong things there.

Did you read/listen to either of the PBS segments I linked for you?

Stop spinning, Homie. You'll make yourself sick. Taking the spokesman's twist of things as being the straight forward truth and then trying to claim the REPORTERS are the ones who are spinning here is a clear indication that YOU are the one not listening. The video is a short segment of a line of questioning and an ongoing discussion that's been between reporters and the WH for some time now. It all comes down to the simple fact that THIS WH refuses to acknowledge basic truths, and you can , if YOU listen carefully, hear the exasperation in the reporters voices. Even they , who have been all but blind lackeys to Obama, cannot believe what they are hearing.

Seems you do.

I am totally not interested in going back and forth if we don't agree on the facts. So let's just stick to them, since they are still there to examine.

Go back to the video and starting at about 0:19 listen very, very carefully through the rest of the video.

You will discover the reporter is asking a slightly different question from what the spokesman is responding to. The reporter is trying to phrase it as Yemen itself was the model and it failed. The spokesman is explaining that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model even though it has fallen short in Yemen in terms of consolidating a central government.

Furthermore, he implied that some of the anti-terror organization still exists in Yemen and is operative. If so, it may give us a conduit of influence with the next guy. From what little I have heard, this is not yet a sectarian or civil war.

So it may be premature to write Yemen off as a total failure. But even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy was flawed.

Perhaps the facts are too subtle for you to grasp, which would explain a lot. Or maybe you just think it's too subtle to matter.

No doubt those more interested in trying to hang something around Obama's neck are much more invested in the "Yemen symbolizes Obama's ME strategy". I'm pretty sure you are in that category.

So, why does he think the "model" is a success if it failed the guy we were backing and the loons are now running the asylum? If I were a ME despot in another country looking for help from the US, I think I'd say give me another model.

The WH is so invested in this Clintonian LIE that they are forced to repeat it over and over. Intelligent people see the LIE for what it is. The lefties lap it up and wag their tails.......

[alexava 6,973]

Simple, isn't it.

I try to watch videos and read articles about the ME without focusing on anything Islam and it actually gets more confusing.

Seeing the ME thru lens of religion is an easy but useless way of seeing the complexity of that region.

This is some "Hatfield and Mccoys" stuff on a much larger scale, over a greater period of time, involving way more parties and moving parts.

The more I dig into the garbage the more I am seeing that Religion is nothing more than a way to circle wagons. The problem is the wagon circles sometimes cross paths.

My head hurts

it reminds me of an old WWF Battle Royal. The real winners are the spectators.

[cooltigger21 0]

Simple, isn't it.

I try to watch videos and read articles about the ME without focusing on anything Islam and it actually gets more confusing.

Seeing the ME thru lens of religion is an easy but useless way of seeing the complexity of that region.

This is some "Hatfield and Mccoys" stuff on a much larger scale, over a greater period of time, involving way more parties and moving parts.

The more I dig into the garbage the more I am seeing that Religion is nothing more than a way to circle wagons. The problem is the wagon circles sometimes cross paths.

My head hurts

it reminds me of an old WWF Battle Royal. The real winners are the spectators.

The one thing we have to do is not let a nuclear arms race break out in the ME. If ISIS and Iran want to battle it out ok cool. Let the Saudis fight in Yemen. That is cool too. These people are just crazy enough though to get a nuke and use it. That is why this deal with Iran is such a bad idea.

[homersapien 11,367]

Simple, isn't it.

I try to watch videos and read articles about the ME without focusing on anything Islam and it actually gets more confusing.

Seeing the ME thru lens of religion is an easy but useless way of seeing the complexity of that region.

This is some "Hatfield and Mccoys" stuff on a much larger scale, over a greater period of time, involving way more parties and moving parts.

The more I dig into the garbage the more I am seeing that Religion is nothing more than a way to circle wagons. The problem is the wagon circles sometimes cross paths.

My head hurts

it reminds me of an old WWF Battle Royal. The real winners are the spectators.

The one thing we have to do is not let a nuclear arms race break out in the ME. If ISIS and Iran want to battle it out ok cool. Let the Saudis fight in Yemen. That is cool too. These people are just crazy enough though to get a nuke and use it. That is why this deal with Iran is such a bad idea.

[japantiger 4,051]

You are also missing the point made by the spokesman in the press conference.

What I heard is that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model to apply generally. Strengthen the central government and allow them to take the fight to terrorists. That certainly seems to be a better strategy than direct intervention. So the literal truth is the model that has been used in Yemen is still the strategy. The spokesman said that as well as acknowledging things hadn't gone so well in Yemen regarding strengthening the central government.

If you go back and listen carefully, you will see that. It's the reporter who keeps positioning the question as Yemen as the model instead of the strategy as the model. So maybe you should try listening more carefully sometime.

The current struggle in Yemen is over who will take over and represent the central government. My understanding is that there are still elements of the government in place with allegiance to the former president (the guy trying to re-take power). FWIW - which may not be much - he has also been pro-American in the past.

Regardless, what was the spokesman supposed to say if the strategy used in Yemen is still the best strategy for us to assume? It has failed in Yemen so we are abandoning that approach?

This is being spun like Obama refuses to admit our efforts in Yemen have failed because we were doing the wrong thing. That's not the case. Yemen may fail, but it's not because we were doing the wrong things there.

Did you read/listen to either of the PBS segments I linked for you?

Stop spinning, Homie. You'll make yourself sick. Taking the spokesman's twist of things as being the straight forward truth and then trying to claim the REPORTERS are the ones who are spinning here is a clear indication that YOU are the one not listening. The video is a short segment of a line of questioning and an ongoing discussion that's been between reporters and the WH for some time now. It all comes down to the simple fact that THIS WH refuses to acknowledge basic truths, and you can , if YOU listen carefully, hear the exasperation in the reporters voices. Even they , who have been all but blind lackeys to Obama, cannot believe what they are hearing.

Seems you do.

I am totally not interested in going back and forth if we don't agree on the facts. So let's just stick to them, since they are still there to examine.

Go back to the video and starting at about 0:19 listen very, very carefully through the rest of the video.

You will discover the reporter is asking a slightly different question from what the spokesman is responding to. The reporter is trying to phrase it as Yemen itself was the model and it failed. The spokesman is explaining that the model used in Yemen is still the operative model even though it has fallen short in Yemen in terms of consolidating a central government.

Furthermore, he implied that some of the anti-terror organization still exists in Yemen and is operative. If so, it may give us a conduit of influence with the next guy. From what little I have heard, this is not yet a sectarian or civil war.

So it may be premature to write Yemen off as a total failure. But even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean the policy was flawed.

Perhaps the facts are too subtle for you to grasp, which would explain a lot. Or maybe you just think it's too subtle to matter.

No doubt those more interested in trying to hang something around Obama's neck are much more invested in the "Yemen symbolizes Obama's ME strategy". I'm pretty sure you are in that category.

So, why does he think the "model" is a success if it failed the guy we were backing and the loons are now running the asylum? If I were a ME despot in another country looking for help from the US, I think I'd say give me another model.

Please correct my understanding if I am off. My understanding from a simple mind.

The "model" is how to combat terrorism by simply supporting countries in the ME without boots on the ground. In this case(Yemen) the focus was Al-Queda, specifically AQAP. I am I wrong so far???

From all the information that I can find the "model" was positive in fighting AQAP. They are weaker now than they were and up until Yemen as a nation failed AQAP had been put in a defensive posture rather than offensive. Is this a fair assessment so far?

The "model" involved nothing to prop Yemen up as a nation. We were not there to bail there economy out, rebuild there infrastructure, or even help the acting government stay in place by removing there opposition. Is this correct?

To the best of my knowledge you have basically 3(I know it's more complicated but making this simple) different enemies all against each other in Yemen. The "model" was focused on AQAP. We were not targeting the Houthi leadership despite them being at odds with the government we were helping fight AQAP. The Houthi leadership as a whole is definitely not a "friend" to the U.S. but even if they took full control and was the governing body they would welcome help from the "model" because they want to wipe AQAP out of the area more than we do.

The U.S. has no interest in nation building at this point. We want AQAP gone. Everyone else in that region does too.

Now the part of nation building and keeping stability in Yemen is the ME's problem to deal with. Egypt apparently is another nation that does not want the Houthi to take control. Good for them.

What did I miss?

So we had a model for the wrong problem? We were helping fight the Italians when we should have been fighting the Germans?

[aubfaninga 16]

So we had a model for the wrong problem? We were helping fight the Italians when we should have been fighting the Germans?

That is funny and witty but that is not what I see.

We have three cocks in a pen and we put spurs on one of them and stepped away.

The cock we wanted to lose will continue to fight for it's life regardless which of the other two cocks falls.

If the Houthi cock takes down our spurred cock then the surrounding pit bulls will jump in. The entire time the dust is flying we will continue to fly drones and blow up stuff. The Saudis, Egyptians, nor the Houthis care about us blowing up AQAP.

Then there is Iran. Oh what fun!!!

[alexava 6,973]

So we had a model for the wrong problem? We were helping fight the Italians when we should have been fighting the Germans?

That is funny and witty but that is not what I see.

We have three cocks in a pen and we put spurs on one of them and stepped away.

The cock we wanted to lose will continue to fight for it's life regardless which of the other two cocks falls.

If the Houthi cock takes down our spurred cock then the surrounding pit bulls will jump in. The entire time the dust is flying we will continue to fly drones and blow up stuff. The Saudis, Egyptians, nor the Houthis care about us blowing up AQAP.

Then there is Iran. Oh what fun!!!

you must be a philosophy major. That is the best analogy so far.

[japantiger 4,051]

So we had a model for the wrong problem? We were helping fight the Italians when we should have been fighting the Germans?

That is funny and witty but that is not what I see.

We have three cocks in a pen and we put spurs on one of them and stepped away.

The cock we wanted to lose will continue to fight for it's life regardless which of the other two cocks falls.

If the Houthi cock takes down our spurred cock then the surrounding pit bulls will jump in. The entire time the dust is flying we will continue to fly drones and blow up stuff. The Saudis, Egyptians, nor the Houthis care about us blowing up AQAP.

Then there is Iran. Oh what fun!!!

In the words of Ron Burgundy..."it's a viscious cock fight"... I guess our strategy is sort of like the news guy that kept getting his arms cut off ...

[alexava 6,973]

You didn't even get into Syria, isis, kurds, or hamas.

[aubfaninga 16]

So we had a model for the wrong problem? We were helping fight the Italians when we should have been fighting the Germans?

That is funny and witty but that is not what I see.

We have three cocks in a pen and we put spurs on one of them and stepped away.

The cock we wanted to lose will continue to fight for it's life regardless which of the other two cocks falls.

If the Houthi cock takes down our spurred cock then the surrounding pit bulls will jump in. The entire time the dust is flying we will continue to fly drones and blow up stuff. The Saudis, Egyptians, nor the Houthis care about us blowing up AQAP.

Then there is Iran. Oh what fun!!!

In the words of Ron Burgundy..."it's a viscious cock fight"... I guess our strategy is sort of like the news guy that kept getting his arms cut off ...

Well........... Can I plead the fifth on that one?