• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Arabia Begins Air Campaign in Yemen

washunut said:
Today you say he is in the Sunni camp, yesterday in the Israeli camp, tomorrow in the Iranian camp. Hope those camps have golf courses.
Click to expand...

Mornin WN. :2wave: Well they now know how to treat him. So that shouldn't be a problem.


th
 
US Conservative said:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Im not picking sides, either. Im for defending the US 's best interests.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Keeping sanctions on Iran keeps world oil prices up but allowing a nuclear Iran may raise them even more. Why is it OK to have a nuclear Pakistan but not a nuclear Iran?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Based on what? Keeping sanctions on Iran keeps world oil prices up but allowing a nuclear Iran may raise them even more. Why is it OK to have a nuclear Pakistan but not a nuclear Iran?
Click to expand...

Im not thrilled about a nuclear Pakistan either, they had to sneak around to get theirs, it certainly wasn't handed to them.
Still, they are to an extent friendly to the US or at least not overtly hostile, can't say the same about Iran.

And allowing Iran to cut off the red sea, and potentially the Persian gulf and therefore holding the flow of oil under siege is unacceptable not just to the US, but much of the world.

It would be an act of war, from most of the world.
 
US Conservative said:
I dont even golf! But I hang out with my friends drinking beers while they do. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well that's due to you having friends.....BO is waking up and discovering. He don't have to many.

What do you think about our Allies all saying that BO peep and his lost sheep can't be trusted?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why is it OK to have a nuclear Pakistan but not a nuclear Iran?
Click to expand...
All 190 nations that have signed the NPT are bound by its XI Articles regarding nuclear-weapons, nuclear-power, research, and proliferation.

Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and is therefore bound by its XI Articles unless it withdraws as North Korea did in 2003.

Four states - India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan - never signed the NPT.
 
MMC said:
Well that's due to you having friends.....BO is waking up and discovering. He don't have to many.

What do you think about our Allies all saying that BO peep and his lost sheep can't be trusted?
Click to expand...

I think if they didn't already know-they are just finding out what we have known all along.
 
It will be interesting to see if the Saudi's actually decide to send troops across the border, or more likely if they decide to airlift troops into Aden, and engage in ground operations. They performed very poorly the last time around and had to lean heavily in Jordanian troops to support their efforts. It's been about five years but I'm skeptical that their capabilities have improved significantly. Lack of professionalism, under strength units, and low morale have historically plagued the Saudi land arm. Though it is eminently possible that they learned their lessons and have taken pains to bring more units up to true professional standards.
 
US Conservative said:
I think if they didn't already know-they are just finding out what we have known all along.
Click to expand...

Well, I was looking at what time BO has left and when they have to deal with him. As it will be evident going forward.
 
Sherman123 said:
It will be interesting to see if the Saudi's actually decide to send troops across the border, or more likely if they decide to airlift troops into Aden, and engage in ground operations. They performed very poorly the last time around and had to lean heavily in Jordanian troops to support their efforts. It's been about five years but I'm skeptical that their capabilities have improved significantly. Lack of professionalism, under strength units, and low morale have historically plagued the Saudi land arm. Though it is eminently possible that they learned their lessons and have taken pains to bring more units up to true professional standards.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, one of the reasons for the naval vessels is to transport troops to the southern coast. And then the arab coalition will move towards the rebels from both sides.
 
US Conservative said:
As I understand it, one of the reasons for the naval vessels is to transport troops to the southern coast. And then the arab coalition will move towards the rebels from both sides.
Click to expand...

It's also the easiest place for them to insert troops. During the last major border war in 2009-2010 the Saudi's suffered heavy casualties for minimal gains. It wouldn't be surprising if they were trying to minimize potential casualties with more minimal objectives like securing Aden and the southern periphery while relying on air power and local proxies to harry the north.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Based on what? Keeping sanctions on Iran keeps world oil prices up but allowing a nuclear Iran may raise them even more. Why is it OK to have a nuclear Pakistan but not a nuclear Iran?
Click to expand...


We have gone from "Iran isn't building bombs, this is all Republican panic" to "so what, why shouldn't they have them?"

At least we are admitting the threat exists
 
Sherman123 said:
It's also the easiest place for them to insert troops. During the last major border war in 2009-2010 the Saudi's suffered heavy casualties for minimal gains. It wouldn't be surprising if they were trying to minimize potential casualties with more minimal objectives like securing Aden and the southern periphery while relying on air power and local proxies to harry the north.
Click to expand...

The Egyptians sent 4 ships to the gulf Aden.....they are a bit better than the Saud at conducting operations.
 
Sherman123 said:
It's also the easiest place for them to insert troops. During the last major border war in 2009-2010 the Saudi's suffered heavy casualties for minimal gains. It wouldn't be surprising if they were trying to minimize potential casualties with more minimal objectives like securing Aden and the southern periphery while relying on air power and local proxies to harry the north.
Click to expand...

I agree, I dont see any of the coalition forces willing or capable of the sustained operations that would be required to completely defeat the enemy, considering AQ controls most of the east as is, and the terrain.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From The New York Times:



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/al-anad-air-base-houthis-yemen.html

Just as had been the case with Bahrain, it appears that Saudi Arabia and neighboring states may have drawn a line on preventing Shia movements from toppling governments in adjacent states. The Gulf Cooperation Council's military intervention to quash a Shia uprising in Bahrain very likely deprived Iran from gaining an ability to blockade the Persian Gulf, a development that could have facilitated Iran's drive for regional hegemony. Whether or not Saudi Arabia and its regional alies send ground forces into Yemen to restore order after using air power to degrade the Houthi militants remains to be seen. If they do, not only will such a development hold the possibility of strengthening regional stability, but it could also signal a new more assertive national security doctrine on the part of Saudi Arabia and its regional allies.
Click to expand...

Or it could disintegrate into a proxy sectarian war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I hope the US stays out of it and let the two sides fight it out once and for all.

Frankly I don't see the Saudi's as a stabilizing force... especially since they...not Iran...are the biggest supporters of terrorism (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Wahabbists, Charlie Hebdo, Fort Hood, etc....) in the world. Who could forget 9/11 or that 19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi citizens? The Saudi's pushed for the US to invade Iraq and then supported Al Qaeda to kill US troops and Shiite. Seriously, with allies like that who needs enemies?
 
The Saudi's have dedicated 100 jets plus helicopters and ground forces. A sizable Saudi ground force is now massing about 20 miles from the Yemeni border. The Egyptians have contributed naval vessels and the US is contributing intelligence, reconnaissance, and air-refueling tankers. The rest of the coalition has contributed fighter aircraft ... Morocco (15), Jordan (15), Sudan (15), Kuwait (15), Bahrain (15), UAE (30), Qatar (10), Pakistan (15).

The Saudi's report that all Yemeni military aircraft have been destroyed and coalition air assets continue to attack air defenses, arms depots, and communications lines. It seems to me they are "shaping the battlefield" as a precursor to a ground invasion. The Houthi rebels continue to pound the city of Aden with tank munitions and reports from Aden say the city is in chaos and hospitals are filling up with wounded civilians.

Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq (all majority Shiite states) have condemned the coalition operation.

The US is in the odd position of assisting the Shia of Iraq against Sunni ISIS while assisting the Sunni coalition attacks on the Shia of Yemen.
 
Simpleχity;1064472326 said:
The US is in the odd position of assisting the Shia of Iraq against Sunni ISIS while assisting the Sunni coalition attacks on the Shia of Yemen.
Click to expand...

As Jon Stewart put it.. "it took decades of destabilizing conflict, but we finally figured out how to wage a proxy war against ourselves".
 
PeteEU said:
As Jon Stewart put it.. "it took decades of destabilizing conflict, but we finally figured out how to wage a proxy war against ourselves".
Click to expand...

Thanks Obama. :mrgreen:
 
MMC said:
No no Pete
nono.gif
you just stated it.....its a first. Another for BO peep. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Pft it is not like it started overnight. For example, Iran would not be what it is today if it had not been for the Eisenhower (and later presidents) support for the Shah and his brutal regime.
 
PeteEU said:
Pft it is not like it started overnight. For example, Iran would not be what it is today if it had not been for the Eisenhower (and later presidents) support for the Shah and his brutal regime.
Click to expand...

Pete you said it was the first time we started a proxy war against ourselves.....I agreed and gave credit to the BO peep. I was only sticking up for the little fella. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom