Rival tanks deploy in streets of Yemen's capital

SANAA, Yemen – Rival tanks deployed in the streets of Yemen's capital Monday after three senior army commanders defected to a movement calling for the ouster of the U.S.-backed president, radically depleting his support among the country's most powerful institutions.

Click to expand...

Here we go again. Another day, another war in an Arab nation. But here is what I am about to make my point with:

Some of the division's tanks and armored vehicles then deployed in the square, which protesters have occupied for more than a month to call for the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh after 32 years in power. An increasingly violent crackdown on the demonstrations escalated dramatically on Friday when Saleh's forces opened fire from rooftops, killing more 40 in an assault that caused much of his remaining power base to splinter.

Click to expand...

That's right. He is killing his own people too, just like Khadafi. Do we order up a no fly zone in Yemen too? And what about the next dictator who fires on his own people? And the one after that? And don't tell me you didn't see this coming. I could see it plain as day.

What's for dinner today, you ask? Worms. Another can of them has been opened, and as I always say, waste not, want not. If you supported Barack and Hillary on this, the meal is at YOUR table. Clean your plates! Eat it!

As for Obama, I have a message for him....

Mr. President, you are an idiot.

Article is here.

Yemen has a lot of Al Qaida. Libya has some Al Qaida, but maybe less.

There are fewer logical options for US intervention in Yemen. US Citizens have been warned to stay off the streets after dark in Yemen. I don't plan to go to Yemen, for the forseeable futuer.


"Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as its Yemen-based group is called, is "on the upswing," the official said. "The relative concern ratios are changing. We're more concerned now about AQAP than we were before."

Al-Qaeda in Yemen is seen as more agile and aggressive, officials said. It took the group just a few months to set in motion a plot that succeeded in getting an alleged suicide bomber aboard a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day."


CIA: Al Qaeda in Yemen Now Biggest Threat - CBS News



//

These Tyrants who have been running wild for 30 to 40 years have all got to have mufti-millions stashed in banks all over and have to wonder what it is about power that they can't just get the hell out of Dodge, and live happily ever after.

These idiots are risking their lives to stay in power. Why?

Councilman said:

These Tyrants who have been running wild for 30 to 40 years have all got to have mufti-millions stashed in banks all over and have to wonder what it is about power that they can't just get the hell out of Dodge, and live happily ever after.

These idiots are risking their lives to stay in power. Why?

Click to expand...

Because being a billionaire ex-dictator isn't as much fun as being a billionaire dictator.

I'm starting to get sick of the Middle East.

American said:

I'm starting to get sick of the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Well don't comment in threads about it. :lol:

That's right. He is killing his own people too, just like Khadafi. Do we order up a no fly zone in Yemen too? And what about the next dictator who fires on his own people? And the one after that? And don't tell me you didn't see this coming. I could see it plain as day.

What's for dinner today, you ask? Worms. Another can of them has been opened, and as I always say, waste not, want not. If you supported Barack and Hillary on this, the meal is at YOUR table. Clean your plates! Eat it!

Click to expand...

The no-fly zone was a way of showing the Arab world that the west "cares" and won't sit idly by as demonstrators are massacred. If you haven't noticed, the Libya affair is getting quite a bit of publicity, to the point where other Arab/Middle Eastern movements aren't getting much air time at all, if any. This makes it seem like the west actually does care, when in reality - you are correct - they're just pulling a publicity stunt while at the same time getting their foot in the door on Libya's oil.

Yemen is too close to Saudi Arabia for it to be comfortable with US or western intervention.

Yemen is also too far away and isn't exactly surrounded by nations willing to host western aircraft so means most aircraft will have to be from carriers, ie US carriers. Thats a much harder and strenuous deployment and strain on resources than Libya's NFZ.

Yemen doesn't seem to have an organized resistance the way Egypt or Libya has, therefore to whom are are benefiting with a no fly zone isn't harder to answer than Libya where its already difficult to tell what that revolution may turn into. In Libya we have the Bengazhi rebels and Egypt had its own military as an opposition force, or at least a force no longer willing to listen to the current gov't even tho it didnt answer to the people.

Yemen doesn't have any aircraft away for the most part. Wikipedia says its less than 50 that are attack aircraft/helicopters, assuming they all even work, and although thats Wikipedia I doubt its much more, however Yemen does have a large amount of AA equipment probably because of Saudi Arabia which has a fairly modern air force, mostly due to US arm sales, and is often hostile towards Yemen. So since destroying enemy AA is a standard part of a NFZ, thats a whole lot of work for little gain.

Yemen also isn't using its airforce at all, so what would the rioters gain from it being destroyed? Also most of the riots are taking place in big cities, namely the capital, so unless Yemen is going to drop bombs on its own capital with 50 style aircraft they won't be much of a threat unless tribes start revolting.

Yemen also isn't in rebellion the way Libya is, its mostly just riots so far not enough organization to really be called a revolution or rebellion so there's not enough confidence any help provided will be used effectively and taken advantage of by anyone.

So in short, we don't know who the rioters are ie what kind of gov't they want or who, if anyone is leading them and Yemen isn't using its airforce anyway.

Now thats just a quick analysis, I'm not coming out on the pro/anti side of a NFZ in Libya or Yemen, Im just trying to show why its my opinion that a Libyan NFZ is: easier to accomplish, has a better chance to really change something, and makes a much bigger impact on the situation in the rebels favors.

Khayembii Communique said:

The no-fly zone was a way of showing the Arab world that the west "cares" and won't sit idly by as demonstrators are massacred. If you haven't noticed, the Libya affair is getting quite a bit of publicity, to the point where other Arab/Middle Eastern movements aren't getting much air time at all, if any. This makes it seem like the west actually does care, when in reality - you are correct - they're just pulling a publicity stunt while at the same time getting their foot in the door on Libya's oil.

Click to expand...

What cynical motives you ascribe to those of us who are moved by rebels trying to take over their oppressive government. What American who's ever taken a history class in his life could not sympathize with a people fighting for their independence?

I'm so tired of hearing, "It's about the oil," as if it's a horrible thing. It is in the best interests of every American that oil countries remain stable. If our oil supply is threatened in any meaningful way, especially while we are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since 1929, our way of life is at great risk.

I'm so tired of hearing, "It's about the oil," as if it's a horrible thing. It is in the best interests of every American that oil countries remain stable. If our oil supply is threatened in any meaningful way, especially while we are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since 1929, our way of life is at great risk.

Click to expand...

As long as you're unapologetic about your imperialist ambitions, that's one thing (with which I obviously disagree). It's another to claim that this is solely about some benevolence on the part of the US government or NATO.

Khayembii Communique said:

As long as you're unapologetic about your imperialist ambitions, that's one thing (with which I obviously disagree).

Click to expand...

To argue that countries should act in their own national interest is not the same thing as imperialist ambitions. Imperialism has a much narrower definition.

There is not a state in the world that does not act in its interests. The idea that states act or should act strictly in an altruistic fashion with little regard for their interests is fiction.

To argue that countries should act in their own national interest

Click to expand...

I never said it was, but this conflict boils down to imperialist intervention.

Khayembii Communique said:

I never said it was, but this conflict boils down to imperialist intervention.

Click to expand...

The comments to which you referred dealt with stability in oil producing countries being in the national interest. There was no advocacy for imposing authority over or colonizing any oil producing states. Stability does not require such conditions. Therefore, I don't believe it is accurate to describe the position to which you referred as being the result of "imperialist ambitions."

I also believe stability in such countries is important for U.S. interests. However, that is quite different from calling for U.S. or Western control over oil-producing states via coercion or force. If the U.S. wishes to reduce its current level of vulnerability to oil supply shocks, it should pursue a credible energy policy. That it hasn't done so, even as the first supply shocks occurred back in the early 1970s (a near supply shock occurred in 1967), is the reason it is more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. Choices--and in this case, long-running political inaction--have consequences. The consequence of this persistent bipartisan inaction (concrete action matters far more than campaign rhetoric) is reduced energy supply flexibility and the adverse effects that result from such reduced flexibility.

donsutherland1 said:

The comments to which you referred dealt with stability in oil producing countries being in the national interest. There was no advocacy for imposing authority over or colonizing any oil producing states. Stability does not require such conditions. Therefore, I don't believe it is accurate to describe the position to which you referred as being the result of "imperialist ambitions."

I also believe stability in such countries is important for U.S. interests. However, that is quite different from calling for U.S. or Western control over oil-producing states via coercion or force. If the U.S. wishes to reduce its current level of vulnerability to oil supply shocks, it should pursue a credible energy policy. That it hasn't done so, even as the first supply shocks occurred back in the early 1970s (a near supply shock occurred in 1967), is the reason it is more vulnerable than would otherwise have been the case. Choices--and in this case, long-running political inaction--have consequences. The consequence of this persistent bipartisan inaction (concrete action matters far more than campaign rhetoric) is reduced energy supply flexibility and the adverse effects that result from such reduced flexibility.

Click to expand...

It is not too late to make the proper choices either. All it requires is the political will to do so. I remember Thomas Edison's quote "We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles". Seems to me that, if we wait too long to do what we need to do, that quote will become obsolete.

Are we absolutely sure all people are created equally?

This part of the world puts a real strain on that axiom.

One should keep in mind that Gaddafi has always been a beacon of resistance to Western powers so it is far easier to initiate action against him. On the other hand Saleh has been a dutiful soldier of the imperial powers since the Cold War.

One should keep in mind that Gaddafi has always been a beacon of resistance to Western powers so it is far easier to initiate action against him. On the other hand Saleh has been a dutiful soldier of the imperial powers since the Cold War.

Click to expand...

Where have you been the past decade? Qadaffi was a strong ally of western powers and Saleh has been wavering on Al Qa'ida for years.

Khayembii Communique said:

Where have you been the past decade? Qadaffi was a strong ally of western powers and Saleh has been wavering on Al Qa'ida for years.

Click to expand...

Have you been drinking? Qadaffi was not a strong ally of the western powers, a business partner for the Europeans for his oil maybe. But claiming he was a strong ally is just silly. Now..on the other hand he was pals with Louis Farrakan & Reverand Wright who in turn are good pals with out current president.

Khayembii Communique said:

Where have you been the past decade? Qadaffi was a strong ally of western powers and Saleh has been wavering on Al Qa'ida for years.

Click to expand...

While Gaddafi has been more cooperative it would be disingenuous to describe him as a strong ally of the West. Really we just ended his isolation.