• 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!

Out of Yemen, U.S. is Hobbled in Terror Fight

Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

And a few years from now, it'll become our problem when the next major terrorist attack occurs on our soil.

You idiot Isolationists just don't get it. You can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. IT WON'T GO AWAY!

Back off on the invectives and calm down.

Once you are in-country be sure and let us know how it's working out backing the good guys of the moment.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

KSA has ISIL on their northern border, a semi-hostile "frenemy" relationship with Washington, an ongoing threat to Bahrain, and need to pour resources into maintaining a capability against a surging Iran across the strait.

I'm not saying they won't project force - but capability and sustainability for what you are talking about becomes a question.

For the past few years, Saudi Arabia has made containment of Iran in the Middle East its primary foreign policy issue. The Yemen crisis is a good time for Riyadh to prove that it is indeed serious about diminishing Iran's influence. Obviously, we should provide the Saudis with whatever military or logistical capabilities that they'd need to crush the Houthi movement. I can also anticipate Qatar and the UAE joining the Saudis as part of a coalition effort against the Houthis.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

...the Shah... would have remained in power with the support of the US had the US been able to convince the Shah to alter his rule - similar situation to Mubarak in Egypt.

One of the arguments made about the rise of the Iranian Revolution is that the U.S. pressed the Shah to move with reform too quickly (almost a variant of a contemporary strain of thought that democracy can easily be achieved by leadership decisions/changes of leadership). As governance authority began eroding with the reforms, that vacuum was skillfully exploited by a radical movement that made no secret that it was not a democratic, but an Islamist one. The Ayatollah's writings were very clear. The Revolution was not a democratic or liberal movement.

IMO, even as it is an unpopular thought, I believe the U.S. made a strategic error in not backing the Shah early on when the radical revolution was in its infancy and could readily have been quashed. U.S. hesitation and later withdrawal of support for the Shah, drained Iran's military of the appetite to suppress the uprising, leading to its spread to a scale that subsequently brought down Iran's government. Today, Iran is not democratic, though the people can elect some officials, even as power resides with the unelected Clerics. Furthermore, Iran is playing an active role in destabilizing parts of the Middle East (via Hezbollah, its support for the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, etc.) and seeking regional hegemony.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

For the past few years, Saudi Arabia has made containment of Iran in the Middle East its primary foreign policy issue. The Yemen crisis is a good time for Riyadh to prove that it is indeed serious about diminishing Iran's influence. Obviously, we should provide the Saudis with whatever military or logistical capabilities that they'd need to crush the Houthi movement. I can also anticipate Qatar and the UAE joining the Saudis as part of a coalition effort against the Houthis.

Saudi Arabia may well be reviewing its options, including military ones: Exclusive: Saudi Arabia building up military near Yemen border - U.S. officials | Reuters

IMO, Saudi Arabia made an enormous contribution to regional stability when it played a leading role with the Gulf Cooperation Council in turning aside a rising Shia revolution in Bahrain in 2011. Had that uprising unfolded and swept away Bahrain's government, Iran would almost certainly have a satellite in a critical area by which it would have much greater ability to choke off Persian Gulf shipping and the U.S. would also have lost a strategic naval base.

On a separate note, I am somewhat disturbed about the lack of U.S. support for Yemen's embattled President who supported U.S. counterterrorism efforts in his country at great risk. This lack of support for allies again raises questions about the credibility of U.S. commitments and, if U.S. commitments are seen as less than credible, such an outcome will have adverse implications for U.S. interests.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

For the past few years, Saudi Arabia has made containment of Iran in the Middle East its primary foreign policy issue. The Yemen crisis is a good time for Riyadh to prove that it is indeed serious about diminishing Iran's influence. Obviously, we should provide the Saudis with whatever military or logistical capabilities that they'd need to crush the Houthi movement. I can also anticipate Qatar and the UAE joining the Saudis as part of a coalition effort against the Houthis.


You are correct and the Saud will call the other Sunni to help with assistance. As they already have done. The Saud is amassing troops as we speak although it appears defensively. The Shia Rebels have driven Hadi from his home and are advancing. If they push for Aden. The Saud and others will jump in.




(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia is moving heavy military equipment including artillery to areas near its border with Yemen, U.S. officials said on Tuesday, raising the risk that the Middle East’s top oil power will be drawn into the worsening Yemeni conflict.

The buildup follows a southward advance by Iranian-backed Houthi Shi'ite militants who took control of the capital Sanaa in September and seized the central city of Taiz at the weekend as they move closer to the new southern base of U.S.-supported President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Riyadh hosted top-level talks with Gulf Arab neighbours on Saturday that backed Hadi as Yemen's legitimate president and offered "all efforts" to preserve the country's stability.....snip~

Exclusive - Saudi Arabia building up military near Yemen border: U.S. officials | Reuters
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

For the past few years, Saudi Arabia has made containment of Iran in the Middle East its primary foreign policy issue. The Yemen crisis is a good time for Riyadh to prove that it is indeed serious about diminishing Iran's influence.

True, but capability to project force and competing fronts is a reality for them that I think you are underappreciating.

Obviously, we should provide the Saudis with whatever military or logistical capabilities that they'd need to crush the Houthi movement.

:lol: and what about our foreign policy for the last few years makes you think that we will actually do this? :lol:

I can also anticipate Qatar and the UAE joining the Saudis as part of a coalition effort against the Houthis.

I could see that.
 
This shows that America needs to triple...no, quadruple her Defense spending.

She needs to make sure that American troops are based, in force, in every city...no...every town...no...every house in the Middle East.

America must control every human with direct military power...this is the only way to assure the continuation of the American ideal of freedom and personal liberty for all...er...all Americans. Well, all Americans that are not under surveillance...which is all Americans who are not rich.

This is the Neocon credo...the neocon ideal. And all shall bow before it.

Hail Neoconism!!!


;)
 
It appears the Saud and its Sunni allies will now have to make a decision to go in and take Yemen. Hadi has fled the country.




Yemen President Leaves country, Officials Tell AP

SANAA, Yemen — Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi fled the country by sea Wednesday on a boat from Aden, as Shiite rebels and their allies advanced on the southern port city where he had taken refuge, captured his defence minister and seized the city's airport.

Hadi's departure marks a dramatic turn in Yemen's turmoil and means a decisive collapse of what was left of his rule, which the United States and Gulf allies had hoped could stabilize the chronically chaotic nation and fight al-Qaida's branch here after the 2011 ouster of longtime autocrat Ali Abdullah Saleh.....snip~

Yemen President Leaves country, Officials Tell AP



Yemen’s embattled president flees stronghold as Shiite rebels advance

Yemen





The Journal reported a convoy of Saudi Arabian officials helped Hadi in his escape. Newsweek said the Houthis put a $93,000 (20m Yemeni riyals) bounty on Hadi's capture.

Early Wednesday, the rebels seized the Al Anad air base used by American forces for counterterrorism operations as the country heads to civil war and possibly captured two Hadi military loyalists, the New York Times reported......snip~


Read more: Yemen president flees city by boat during intense fighting - UPI.com


Yemen president flees city by boat during intense fighting - UPI.com
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

You are correct and the Saud will call the other Sunni to help with assistance. As they already have done. The Saud is amassing troops as we speak although it appears defensively. The Shia Rebels have driven Hadi from his home and are advancing. If they push for Aden. The Saud and others will jump in.




(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia is moving heavy military equipment including artillery to areas near its border with Yemen, U.S. officials said on Tuesday, raising the risk that the Middle East’s top oil power will be drawn into the worsening Yemeni conflict.

The buildup follows a southward advance by Iranian-backed Houthi Shi'ite militants who took control of the capital Sanaa in September and seized the central city of Taiz at the weekend as they move closer to the new southern base of U.S.-supported President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Riyadh hosted top-level talks with Gulf Arab neighbours on Saturday that backed Hadi as Yemen's legitimate president and offered "all efforts" to preserve the country's stability.....snip~

Exclusive - Saudi Arabia building up military near Yemen border: U.S. officials | Reuters

And the Middle East continues to deteriorate.

Another great success story for Obama!
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

And the Middle East continues to deteriorate.

Another great success story for Obama!



Heya RV. :2wave: Its Official now.....the Shia have ran Hadi and his government out. They have captured the defense minister too.

If the Saud and Sunni don't move in Asap.....this will become a proxy for Iran.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

The US backed the Shah in a complete takeover of the government. In the 1950's Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy. The Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran and with US and British backing the Shah staged a coup and overthrew the government and instituted a dictatorship. That was an action that fueled arab nationalism and distrust of the west. Due to economic concerns the US set the stage for a dictator that would eventually be overthrown by an extreme arab nationalist theocracy.

The Mossadegh-gave-us-Khomeini tale is a staple of leftist propaganda. It is repeated endlessly, apparently on the theory that false information, if repeated often enough without being challenged, comes to be accepted as fact. The U.S. and Britain put young, pro-Western Shah Pahlavi in power in 1943. They had been supplying Stalin's USSR through the risky northern sea route to Murmansk, and they wanted a stable Iran to provide an alternative southern route. So by 1953, he had already been shah, i.e. king, for a decade.

Mohammed Mossadegh, an erratic and influential politician, had been engaging in intrigues against the Shah for years. Differences had grown between the Shah and Mossadegh and his allies on the issue of Iran's arrangements with Britain regarding oil royalties. Mossadegh also seemed to be cooperating pretty closely with the Iranian communists. The containment doctrine was very much alive, and so was Stalin, who only three years earlier had helped the North Koreans start a war that was still going on. President Truman had not felt the situation in Iran was serious enough to call for any intervention, but when Dwight Eisenhower took office he felt the risk of letting an important country on the fringe of the USSR fall under its control was too great to tolerate. So Mossadegh was eased out in what hardly even amounted to a coup, and Shah Pahlavi's rule reasserted.

Is there a possibility that the Iranian revolution could of happened without US interference?

Yes, a very good one. At just about the same time, Islamists were ascending just next door in Afghanistan, in that case in reaction to a communist, atheist government.

That's always a possibility, but coup and takeover of the Shah

To repeat, Reza Pahlavi had already been shah for ten years. He strengthened his control in 1953, but he didn't take over anything.

Those troops were not seen as occupiers and they weren't under threat by the same civilian population that they were there to protect.

Are you saying Barack Obama lied when he portrayed Iraq as pretty much pacified? There was no longer any substantial threat by the end of President Bush's second term, after the 2007 "surge" that quelled the jihadist threat in al Anbar.

The Iraqi situation was a democratically elected government was calling for the removal of our troops. While the Prime Minister had the power to allow the US to extend troops involvement in the country any sort of immunity from prosecution would of required a vote in Parliament...and the votes weren't there.

That makes a convenient excuse for what Barack Obama wanted to do anyway--withdraw all U.S. forces. With a strong U.S. force still there, Iraq was no more in a position to refuse the U.S. in 2009 than South Korea was in 1954. I am very sure Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, or any other strong U.S. president would not have passively taken no for an answer, but would have demanded--and gotten--the agreement on residual forces he wanted.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

True, but capability to project force and competing fronts is a reality for them that I think you are underappreciating.



:lol: and what about our foreign policy for the last few years makes you think that we will actually do this? :lol:



I could see that.


Egypt is saying they will assist with Air Strikes if necessary. I am sure Qatar and the UAE will do their best to not target Shia Civilians.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

The Mossadegh-gave-us-Khomeini tale is a staple of leftist propaganda. It is repeated endlessly, apparently on the theory that false information, if repeated often enough without being challenged, comes to be accepted as fact. The U.S. and Britain put young, pro-Western Shah Pahlavi in power in 1943. They had been supplying Stalin's USSR through the risky northern sea route to Murmansk, and they wanted a stable Iran to provide an alternative southern route. So by 1953, he had already been shah, i.e. king, for a decade.

Mohammed Mossadegh, an erratic and influential politician, had been engaging in intrigues against the Shah for years. Differences had grown between the Shah and Mossadegh and his allies on the issue of Iran's arrangements with Britain regarding oil royalties. Mossadegh also seemed to be cooperating pretty closely with the Iranian communists. The containment doctrine was very much alive, and so was Stalin, who only three years earlier had helped the North Koreans start a war that was still going on. President Truman had not felt the situation in Iran was serious enough to call for any intervention, but when Dwight Eisenhower took office he felt the risk of letting an important country on the fringe of the USSR fall under its control was too great to tolerate. So Mossadegh was eased out in what hardly even amounted to a coup, and Shah Pahlavi's rule reasserted.

Hardly amounted to a coup? They took out the elected prime minister and executed him and some of his top advisers. A general hand picked by the US CIA as was to take over as PM based on a plan created by the CIA which utilized the Iranian military. By what definition is that not a coup?

Yes, a very good one. At just about the same time, Islamists were ascending just next door in Afghanistan, in that case in reaction to a communist, atheist government.
So an invasion by the USSR and a coup orchestrated by the US both led to a takeover by Islamic radicals.

To repeat, Reza Pahlavi had already been shah for ten years. He strengthened his control in 1953, but he didn't take over anything.
I guess the CIA declassified documents lie?

Are you saying Barack Obama lied when he portrayed Iraq as pretty much pacified? There was no longer any substantial threat by the end of President Bush's second term, after the 2007 "surge" that quelled the jihadist threat in al Anbar.
Are you saying that he was right? Seems that a sustantial threat did exist and the jihadist threat is pretty real in Iraq.

That makes a convenient excuse for what Barack Obama wanted to do anyway--withdraw all U.S. forces. With a strong U.S. force still there, Iraq was no more in a position to refuse the U.S. in 2009 than South Korea was in 1954. I am very sure Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, or any other strong U.S. president would not have passively taken no for an answer, but would have demanded--and gotten--the agreement on residual forces he wanted.
Sure, they would of overthrown regimes, go against democratic majorities or whatever else it took. We are dealing with the results their heavy handed actions to this day. There's a reason we aren't very popular in the arab world and in latin America...
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Has Iran said anything about the Sauds build up on the border, or Egypt and others talking about using Air Strikes?
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Hardly amounted to a coup? They took out the elected prime minister and executed him and some of his top advisers. A general hand picked by the US CIA as was to take over as PM based on a plan created by the CIA which utilized the Iranian military. By what definition is that not a coup?

The head of the state - the Shah - remained in power. It was a counter-coup, really, as much as it was anything, in which we played less of a role than both sides (pro and against) might generally suggest. Nor was Mosaddegh executed - as I recall, he retreated to his home to sulk (he was a depressive), and stayed there under a house-arrest program until he died of natural causes, years later.


And no, it didn't give us Khomeini, any more than President Eisenhower gave us President Johnson.

Sure, they would of overthrown regimes, go against democratic majorities or whatever else it took. We are dealing with the results their heavy handed actions to this day. There's a reason we aren't very popular in the arab world and in latin America...

The US became less popular in the Middle East under Obama than it had been under Bush.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Hardly amounted to a coup? They took out the elected prime minister and executed him and some of his top advisers. A general hand picked by the US CIA as was to take over as PM based on a plan created by the CIA which utilized the Iranian military. By what definition is that not a coup?

You are misstating the facts. Mohammed Mossadegh, the prime minister who was ousted, was sentenced to three years in prison. After that, he lived under house arrest.

So an invasion by the USSR and a coup orchestrated by the US both led to a takeover by Islamic radicals.

Again, you misstate the facts. Members of Jamiat-e-Islami, an Islamist party, had tried to overthrow the Afghan government in 1975, more than four years before the Soviet Union ever set foot there. And for more than a year and a half before the first Soviet troops came in at the end of 1979, Islamists had been reacting violently to radical reforms undertaken by the communist government that had been established under Taraki, Amin, and Karmal.

Are you saying that he was right? Seems that a sustantial threat did exist and the jihadist threat is pretty real in Iraq.

The jihadist threat exists there now exactly because the U.S. did not leave a residual peacekeeping force of 15-20,000 as our military experts recommended. Six or seven years ago, President Bush and his advisers considered Iraq reasonably well pacified. So did President Obama--in fact when he was elected he tried to take credit for how stable the situation in Iraq had become. Of course a residual American force would not have been perfectly safe, just as U.S. forces in Iraq right now are not perfectly safe. But our military analysts did not think it would be exposed to unacceptable risks. The residual U.S. force in Korea was not entirely safe, either, with a substantial part of it deployed along the demilitarized zone right across from strong and hostile North Korean forces. And some U.S. forces were killed in incidents there over the years.

Sure, they would of overthrown regimes, go against democratic majorities or whatever else it took. We are dealing with the results their heavy handed actions to this day. There's a reason we aren't very popular in the arab world and in latin America...

Foreign affairs are not a popularity contest, and I am not interested in which people in which country like the U.S. I also do not think the U.S. has to apologize for anything it did to win the Cold War. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all faced the problem of containing a Soviet Union determined to expand its malevolent influence all around the world. That often required them to support political figures who were unsavory and very far from our ideal, not because they liked or admired these men, or because their nations had democratic rule, but because the alternative was to risk having those nations come under Soviet control.

It's easy to say in hindsight what the U.S. should have done here or there--how we should always have supported sweetness and light and popular choice, instead of trying to impose our will on other countries--but the presidents who had to make foreign policy decisions were dealing with an extremely powerful and often aggressive adversary with a lot of nuclear weapons aimed at this country. I'm sure, for example, someone might argue that it was not our business if Cuba chose to become a communist nation, and that had a perfect right, if it wanted, to let the Soviet Union build nuclear missile bases there in 1962. But as President Kennedy knew, the U.S. could not let that happen, because if it had, it would have invited war with the Soviets in Europe or someplace else.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

I didn't imply that. You made an inaccurate inference based on information that did not originate from me or my posts. I don't mind if you make comments that have little to do with the information in my posts, but I would humbly ask that you refrain from quoting me when you do.

I didn't quote you, there are no quotation marks in my post in reference. I did bluntly state what you seemed to imply, to me anyway. My apologies to have misread you.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

For the past few years, Saudi Arabia has made containment of Iran in the Middle East its primary foreign policy issue. The Yemen crisis is a good time for Riyadh to prove that it is indeed serious about diminishing Iran's influence. Obviously, we should provide the Saudis with whatever military or logistical capabilities that they'd need to crush the Houthi movement. I can also anticipate Qatar and the UAE joining the Saudis as part of a coalition effort against the Houthis.

Saudi Arabia is no better than Iran. SA, is every bit as big a sponsor of terror as Iran. SA's treatment of women, gays and others is dismal. Wealthy elites in SA helped finance the 9/11 terror attacks, and indeed, fifteen of the attackers were Saudi. Saudi Arabia suppressed/helped suppress the Arab Spring protests, with US blessing in Bahrain, because that was not in their interests. So, an expanded Iranian influence in the region could be no worse than SA's.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

The head of the state - the Shah - remained in power. It was a counter-coup, really, as much as it was anything, in which we played less of a role than both sides (pro and against) might generally suggest. Nor was Mosaddegh executed - as I recall, he retreated to his home to sulk (he was a depressive), and stayed there under a house-arrest program until he died of natural causes, years later.

True, I got that wrong. He was imprisoned and when released kept under house arrest until his death.

The counter coup, which I can agree is a more accurate term, was against policies pushed by Mosaddegh that decreased the power of the monarchy and aristocracy in Iran. He also pushed for reforms to nationalize the oil industry. It was a move to break apart a democratically elected parliment and prime minister in favor of a king supported by the west.

And no, it didn't give us Khomeini, any more than President Eisenhower gave us President Johnson.
The Sha's government by the late 70's was pretty brutal and corrupt. The rise of Ayatollah Khomeini was a result of opposition to some of the Shah's programs. The Ayhatollah rose to power with support from a mismatch of groups include constitutional liberals and the urban middle class. The urban middle class was the base of support for Mosaddegh's secular government in the 50's. There's a laundry list of policy mistakes I could site if you'd like made by the Shah that increase resentment among the Iranian people.

Why do you think the Iran hostage crisis was targeted at the American embassy? Why exactly do you think in Iran it's referred to as "Conquest of the American Spy Den". Based on statements by Iranians their motivation was fear of another American backed coup.

The US instituted a counter-coup against a democratically elected secular government. Anti Western views pretty much united groups in Iran against the Shah that otherwise would never be considered allies. The Shah's policies were very unpopular.

The US became less popular in the Middle East under Obama than it had been under Bush.
Where are you getting that information?

Poll Shows Obama's Recent Popularity in Arab World | The Daily Caller

A poll conducted by the Zogby Research Service titled “Five Years After the Cairo Speech, How Arabs View President Obama and America,” shows that the President’s favorability ratings in the Arab world have improved.

The poll showed that in most Arab countries attitudes towards the United States are similar to where they stood in 2009, when Obama gave his infamous Cairo speech titled “A New Beginning.” These most recent approval ratings are significantly higher than the low favorability ratings of the Bush-era.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

You are misstating the facts. Mohammed Mossadegh, the prime minister who was ousted, was sentenced to three years in prison. After that, he lived under house arrest.
.

As above, yes I did. Some of his ministers were killed but Mossadegh was imprisoned then was sentenced to house arrest until his death.

Again, you misstate the facts. Members of Jamiat-e-Islami, an Islamist party, had tried to overthrow the Afghan government in 1975, more than four years before the Soviet Union ever set foot there. And for more than a year and a half before the first Soviet troops came in at the end of 1979, Islamists had been reacting violently to radical reforms undertaken by the communist government that had been established under Taraki, Amin, and Karmal.
I'm not misstating facts, the USSR backed communist group deposed the President of Afghanistan and after the invasion of Afghanistan ended, the communist government without the backing of the Soviets fell to Islamic radicals. Intervention by the USSR destabilized the government, put in a puppet government which then fell to Islamic radicals.

The jihadist threat exists there now exactly because the U.S. did not leave a residual peacekeeping force of 15-20,000 as our military experts recommended. Six or seven years ago, President Bush and his advisers considered Iraq reasonably well pacified. So did President Obama--in fact when he was elected he tried to take credit for how stable the situation in Iraq had become.
President Bush originally signed the agreement with the Iraqi government. In order to keep troops in past the initially signed agreement the US wanted assurance that US soldiers wouldn't be prosecuted by the Iraqi government. That assurance would require a vote in the Iraqi Parliament which did NOT support US troops. In fact, the American population didn't support us leaving troops behind but President Obama still sought against both the popular will in the US and the popular will in Iraq to workout an agreement.
Foreign affairs are not a popularity contest, and I am not interested in which people in which country like the U.S. I also do not think the U.S. has to apologize for anything it did to win the Cold War. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan all faced the problem of containing a Soviet Union determined to expand its malevolent influence all around the world. That often required them to support political figures who were unsavory and very far from our ideal, not because they liked or admired these men, or because their nations had democratic rule, but because the alternative was to risk having those nations come under Soviet control.
I'm not making a judgement statement on the policies of our presidents during the Cold War, my whole point regarding the Iranian revolution as well as other US action is that this intervention creates a pretty large ripple effect. I'm stating that there's a group in the US that believes in intervention as a first resort everytime the US is faced with a foreign policy issue. The fact is, the US took a very active role in foreign countries following WWII and during the Cold War and we have more than enough instances where those interventions have led to some very bad consequences in the long term.

It's easy to say in hindsight what the U.S. should have done here or there--how we should always have supported sweetness and light and popular choice, instead of trying to impose our will on other countries--but the presidents who had to make foreign policy decisions were dealing with an extremely powerful and often aggressive adversary with a lot of nuclear weapons aimed at this country. I'm sure, for example, someone might argue that it was not our business if Cuba chose to become a communist nation, and that had a perfect right, if it wanted, to let the Soviet Union build nuclear missile bases there in 1962. But as President Kennedy knew, the U.S. could not let that happen, because if it had, it would have invited war with the Soviets in Europe or someplace else.
It is very easy with hindsight to condemn previous actions, and that was never my point in bringing up Iran. Since I've been discussing this topic my main point has been that we should LEARN from pass interventions and move forward with a lot more caution than some in Congress.

It's very easy 40 years later to say "that was good and that was bad" and I'm not doing that. I'm just pointing out that Americans and policy makers should at least consider the past before they make moves. This thread is about Yemen and the current situation there. Is Yemen a direct and clear national security threat? Should the US maintain troops there or intervene in a 4 way civil war?
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Recall when Alfred E. Newman Obama referred to ISIS as "junior varsity". No American president has committed more deliberate acts to downgrade our influence in the world than the traitor currently holding the office. Sad to say old bag Clinton will follow and her acts of betrayal are well documented.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

and indeed, fifteen of the attackers were Saudi.

The only evidence of that is that they had Saudi passports. Al Qaeda had at least two cells in Spain devoted to forging documents to support its operations. Neither you nor anyone else knows what the true nationalities of the hijackers were, and it probably never will be known.
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

The only evidence of that is that they had Saudi passports. Al Qaeda had at least two cells in Spain devoted to forging documents to support its operations. Neither you nor anyone else knows what the true nationalities of the hijackers were, and it probably never will be known.

Lol, nobody denies the nationality of fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers.



Further information: September 11 attacks
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four "muscle hijackers" who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew.

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six years too late, George W. Bush has finally acknowledged that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were citizens of the U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/Story?id=4136209&page=2
 
Re: U.S. Flees Yemen

Why do you think the Iran hostage crisis was targeted at the American embassy?

Because it was the work of Muslim jihadists who hate the United States. They also hate Jews and Israel, and western civilization in general. Muhammad Navab-Safavi, Ruhollah Khomeinei and their followers were involved in Islamist terrorism in Iran well before 1953. If I had more time, I would quote some of their stunningly violent statements callng for the faithful to shed the blood of infidels.

Evidently you would like to blame the U.S. for the blossoming of Islamist jihad. What you are claiming is just a variation on the claim of Mr. Obama's longtime preacher, Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright, that this country brought 9/11 on itself: "America, your chickens have come home to roost." But in fact jihadists' hatred of all things secular and western, and of Jews, is rooted not in anything the West ever did to them, but in the most orthodox documents of Islam itself.

Why exactly do you think in Iran it's referred to as "Conquest of the American Spy Den"

I think it is because the people who call it that are either childishly naive or, more likely, hope to inflame others who are against the U.S. It's generally assumed--and has been for a very long time--that one important reason nation's maintain embassies is to collect useful information about developments in the host nation. Any country's embassy anywhere could be considered a "spy den."

Based on statements by Iranians their motivation was fear of another American backed coup.

You may choose to believe what Muslim jihadists say. I assume they are all damned liars, since their religion, at least in their literal interpretation, approves of lying to deceive infidels. The U.S. should have been giving the Islamist murderers in Teheran very good reasons to fear being overthrown, for a long time now.
 
Back
Top Bottom