• 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!

Iran Sends Ships Toward Blockaded Yemen Port...

Heya Wiggen :2wave: We have jumped in to help with some refueling of their planes and some Recon. BO is sending some aid to them. That's about as far as he is going to go.

Seems to me that's far enough, M. I don't mind sending logistical support. I'm just tired of our guys getting killed in other people's wars.
 
Seems to me that's far enough, M. I don't mind sending logistical support. I'm just tired of our guys getting killed in other people's wars.

Well, I agree with us not getting involved with this conflict.....Let the Iranians/Shia and Sunni face each other. When its done Iran will learn their military isn't anything to be feared and the Sunni will give up once Yemen has the Sunni Government in place again.
 
Well, I agree with us not getting involved with this conflict.....Let the Iranians/Shia and Sunni face each other. When its done Iran will learn their military isn't anything to be feared and the Sunni will give up once Yemen has the Sunni Government in place again.

I wonder, what we would do, if push comes to shove. Let oil go thru the roof, while the Gulf clobbers itself into indecisive oblivion.
 
I wonder, what we would do, if push comes to shove. Let oil go thru the roof, while the Gulf clobbers itself into indecisive oblivion.

Well, I would go with Canada and up our own production. Remove Security off the Saud's transportation and get rid of that fee we pay for protecting what they call their precious.

Think we can undercut them on the bids?
 
You want the Saudis to help the US with drug cartels in Mexico and South America?

no, not really. i want them to handle their own neighborhood.

Are the drug cartels as much a threat to them as terrorism is to the US?

hard to tell. terrorism is so low on the causes of death that it's not even on the CDC list.

FastStats - Leading Causes of Death

it's on this list, though :

You're More Likely to Die from Brain-Eating Parasites, Alcoholism, Obesity, Medical Errors, Risky Sexual Behavior or Just About Anything OTHER THAN Terrorism Washington's Blog

maybe we should reprioritize.
 
Iran has been conducting such patrols since 2008, protecting Iranian shipping.
 
sure we can. they leave us standing alone all of the time when there are conflicts in the Americas. what are they doing to help us with the drug gangs that have taken over large areas in Mexico?

Drug gangs? Off with their heads!
 
Russia and maybe China supporting Iran while we support the Saudis. Lots of interested parties here.

That is the growing risk. As the other poles of the multipolar structure taking shape strengthen, the danger of a war by proxy mutating to become the Big One will grow. We are yet not there probably. But when we realized that this would happen 20 years ago, we had much more time to prevent it from happening.
 
Well, I would go with Canada and up our own production. Remove Security off the Saud's transportation and get rid of that fee we pay for protecting what they call their precious.

Think we can undercut them on the bids?

That is certainly a way to handle it. I am not sure if the precedent will lead to consequences we will like, though. But if well used, it might persuade other nations to develop and deploy a global security net.
 
62a1c5fd-318b-458a-97be-5050894d6bf2_16x9_600x338.jpg

Saudi coalition airstrike yesterday on the Republican Palace in the Yemeni city of Taez

The Saudi coalition has launched over 100 airstrikes in Yemen during the past 24 hours. 21 were killed overnight in fierce fighting in Taez. 3 AQ suspects transporting weapons were killed in a US drone strike in Saeed.

So far, an Iranian convoy of a warship and 8 merchant vessels has not attempted to challenge a UN arms embargo of Yemen.
 
Well, I agree with us not getting involved with this conflict.....Let the Iranians/Shia and Sunni face each other. When its done Iran will learn their military isn't anything to be feared and the Sunni will give up once Yemen has the Sunni Government in place again.

Bingo.

We've wanted someone to take arms against ISIS in Northern Iraq and Syria and it's only Iran putting serious ground troop numbers in and pushing ISIS back. That's a Sunni/Shia conflict we don't need to get involved in. Same with Yemen - Saudi Arabia vs Iran forms the same Sunni/Shia conflict and if we take sides in this then it hurts efforts elsewhere.

-- Iran would not have dared deploy ships like this if we had a real president. Even conspicuously diverting a single U.S. attack submarine to the waters near Yemen might have made it seem too risky. But the Islamist thugs in Tehran know they have nothing to fear from President Neville.

What would a real President do in the case of the Sunni / Shia conflict going on? Do you want US and NATO troops fighting EVERYONE in the middle east? We sink an Iranian ship and they may stop their fighting against ISIS in Iraq and Syria - they're the only nation (apart from the Iraqis and Syrians whose land is being fought over) with troops on the ground fighting ISIS.
 
Drug gangs? Off with their heads!

cute, but the point is that the Saudis still do nothing to help us police our neighborhood. i'm fine with the US and Saudi Arabia being friendly, but the US should definitely not be expected to act as regional hegemon in the Middle East. that neighborhood is the responsibility of Saudi Arabia, and regional stability is on them.
 
that neighborhood is the responsibility of Saudi Arabia, and regional stability is on them.
Do you also support the US selling to KSA the high-tech weapons platforms that they will undoubtedly request in order to facilitate regional stability?

In other words, do you support relinquishing the US high-tech weapons edge if this results is less direct US involvement? For example, it's no secret that the KSA has its eye on the new F-35.

I'm just curious about what trade-offs are acceptable in your view.
 
Simpleχity;1064543279 said:
Do you also support the US selling to KSA the high-tech weapons platforms that they will undoubtedly request in order to facilitate regional stability?

why in the **** do you think i support any of this interventionist bull****? are you even paying attention?

Simpleχity;1064543279 said:
In other words, do you support relinquishing the US high-tech weapons edge if this results is less direct US involvement? For example, it's no secret that the KSA has its eye on the new F-35.

let them build one, then. we need to build roads, bridges, and new energy infrastructure.

Simpleχity;1064543279 said:
I'm just curious about what trade-offs are acceptable in your view.

i'm curious about which pigeonhole you are trying to stuff me in.
 
why in the **** do you think i support any of this interventionist bull****? are you even paying attention?
Why so angry? Isn't this forum supposed to be an exchange of opinions and viewpoints?

let them build one, then. we need to build roads, bridges, and new energy infrastructure.
Question answered.

i'm curious about which pigeonhole you are trying to stuff me in.
No pigeonhole. Just interested in different viewpoints. Thanks for sharing.
 
Bingo.

We've wanted someone to take arms against ISIS in Northern Iraq and Syria and it's only Iran putting serious ground troop numbers in and pushing ISIS back. That's a Sunni/Shia conflict we don't need to get involved in. Same with Yemen - Saudi Arabia vs Iran forms the same Sunni/Shia conflict and if we take sides in this then it hurts efforts elsewhere
.


Mornin IC. :2wave: ISIS is a different matter.....and one that requires all to participate in. Now you are correct with their Sunni and Shia sectarian divide. Iran is only in Iraq to gain dominance over the country and its government.

The planet is getting tired of the Arabs sectarian conflict that they just can't finish and handle. Maybe it is time to FORCE them to go to war and thus end it for once and all. After its done and over with. Then neither will be much of a concern for any others. Even better is that those left will know they wont be a threat to any others for a very very long time. So they wont be out starting any ****. Nor talking any ****. Its a win win for the planet.
 
Simpleχity;1064543298 said:
Why so angry? Isn't this forum supposed to be an exchange of opinions and viewpoints?

because my country is expected to be the world's pro bono police force. most people don't even accept that it hasn't worked. meanwhile, other first world countries spend money on things like health care that actually do good. you'd be a bit pissed off, too.

****, you take tons of flak if you even suggest that we don't enter a war (unless it's in Africa.) you get compared to Neville Chamberlain, because every potential enemy is Hitler (except in Africa.) and those who want constant war aren't even willing to pay more in taxes to fund it. they want to fund it by cutting our social safety nets.

now we're expected to have a dick measuring contest with Russia while fighting IS. this will be done with no tax increases, and if we have to get in bed with Assad, we just won't talk about that part, even though he used WMDs on his own people. meanwhile, Saudi Arabia will play a minimal role in the fight, just like they always do, even though this cluster**** is in their backyard. IMO, the best thing that we can do is to pull all of our troops out of that region for thirty years and let it stabilize. let the regional hegemons do their job, while we nation build here.

am i pissed off? yes, because it's infuriating, and i don't want the next generation to be sent off to police the Middle East at the whim of some asshole politician with no skin in the game. i'd rather that my kid not have to worry about going bankrupt when his kid falls out of a tree and breaks his arm.
 
Simpleχity;1064543227 said:
62a1c5fd-318b-458a-97be-5050894d6bf2_16x9_600x338.jpg

Saudi coalition airstrike yesterday on the Republican Palace in the Yemeni city of Taez

The Saudi coalition has launched over 100 airstrikes in Yemen during the past 24 hours. 21 were killed overnight in fierce fighting in Taez. 3 AQ suspects transporting weapons were killed in a US drone strike in Saeed.

So far, an Iranian convoy of a warship and 8 merchant vessels has not attempted to challenge a UN arms embargo of Yemen.

And there is a strong US presence

Navy has seven combat ships around Yemen as Saudi-led blockade continues - The Washington Post

The U.S. Navy has seven combat ships in the waters around Yemen as the Saudi-led bombing campaign there continues, but U.S. troops are not participating in a Saudi naval blockade in the region, U.S. military officials said Friday.

The American ships include: the destroyers USS Forrest Sherman and USS Winston Churchill; the minesweepers USS Sentry and USS Dextrous; and three amphibious ships carrying about 2,200 Marines, the USS Iwo Jima, the USS New York and the USS Fort McHenry, a Navy official told The Washington Post. The USNS Charles Drew, a dry cargo ship, is also in the region.
 
cute, but the point is that the Saudis still do nothing to help us police our neighborhood. i'm fine with the US and Saudi Arabia being friendly, but the US should definitely not be expected to act as regional hegemon in the Middle East. that neighborhood is the responsibility of Saudi Arabia, and regional stability is on them.

Actually, thus far they have not done much to police their own area. In that they are similar to the Japanese or Germans.
 
Heya Matchlight. :2wave: Was there a pic of it being shown? I think we could pick it up and let whoever know where it is at.

I got that info from a description--haven't seen any photos. I'm sure the U.S. is tracking any Iranian ships and knows exactly where they are. But I doubt President Neville would want to tick off his soulmates in Tehran by telling any of their enemies.
 
Do we have to get involved in every frickin' dispute in the Middle East? Why is this our problem and why is it Barack Obama's job to put American service people in harm's way? To satisfy the egos of the Chicken Hawks?

No, of course you are right. The world should have learned about 1935 that the best way to deal with aggressive dictatorships is to sit back meekly, and let them do whatever the hell they want.
 
I got that info from a description--haven't seen any photos. I'm sure the U.S. is tracking any Iranian ships and knows exactly where they are. But I doubt President Neville would want to tick off his soulmates in Tehran by telling any of their enemies.

Yeah, JF has up a link about our ships in the area. So we do know where they are.
 
Bingo.

We've wanted someone to take arms against ISIS in Northern Iraq and Syria and it's only Iran putting serious ground troop numbers in and pushing ISIS back. That's a Sunni/Shia conflict we don't need to get involved in. Same with Yemen - Saudi Arabia vs Iran forms the same Sunni/Shia conflict and if we take sides in this then it hurts efforts elsewhere.



What would a real President do in the case of the Sunni / Shia conflict going on? Do you want US and NATO troops fighting EVERYONE in the middle east? We sink an Iranian ship and they may stop their fighting against ISIS in Iraq and Syria - they're the only nation (apart from the Iraqis and Syrians whose land is being fought over) with troops on the ground fighting ISIS.

Of course I do not want U.S. servicemen fighting anyone, anywhere. The best way to make sure they never have to is to maintain a very strong military and make clear we will use it if necessary. The Islamist thugs in Tehran are acting aggressively exactly because of this president's weakness--he has spent six years inviting their aggression.
 
No, of course you are right. The world should have learned about 1935 that the best way to deal with aggressive dictatorships is to sit back meekly, and let them do whatever the hell they want.

What a frickn' stupid analogy. Iran is not Nazi Germany and the Ayatollah isn't Hitler. But that's the kind of crap logic you get from Chicken Hawks.
 
Back
Top Bottom