• 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 led coalition conducts 'legitimate' strike on bus, killing tens of children

CJ 2.0 said:
Even then it won’t stop. These are not western countries and there are no Queensberry rules at play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
As I pointed out previously, there are more parties involved than just Saudis and Yemenites.

A Shia corridor all the way from Iran to South Arabia is against the interests of most, Israel included.

And where whatever activities Israel is taking in this current game is unknown (perhaps none), it helps to remember that it was once clandestinely active in Yemen before.
 
Grand Mal said:
It needed sayin', is all.
I was no fan of Harper but I appreciated him at that G8 summit saying to Putin, "I'll shake your hand, but you need to get out of the Ukraine." Yeah, the only effect it probably had on Putin was to make him grin but at least it was said, and said by a Canadian.
Click to expand...

Yes fair enough. But tweeting in this case did nothing but virtue signal to a domestic audience. It had no other external consequences, there was no groundwork woth allies (who are not similarly interested in pursuing this - see by contrast the efforts made by Mulroney re South Africa), made the right end result less likely rather than more, and is just another fantasy statement by our government that doesn’t understand either economics or foreign policy.

It’s moral preening, pure and simple, which is really the only thing this government does well.

But hey, we’re in the news, and you know what they say about publicity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chagos said:
As I pointed out previously, there are more parties involved than just Saudis and Yemenites.

A Shia corridor all the way from Iran to South Arabia is against the interests of most, Israel included.

And where whatever activities Israel is taking in this current game is unknown (perhaps none), it helps to remember that it was once clandestinely active in Yemen before.
Click to expand...

So this is the Jews’ doing?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CJ 2.0 said:
So this is the Jews’ doing?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Oh give over!:roll:

If you read back to my previous posts (of yesterday) you'll see that I mentioned just about everybody that is discernible. Those that I personally saw in the 60s and those that can be discerned from various reports today.

If you want to go accusing anyone of picking any particular entity, look at your generalization of "un-Westerness", by which the barbarity we see is exclusively down to those that are not like we are. IOW orientals.

Quite apart from that being way off the mark, as I already pointed out. Alone the Brits chucked Queensberry rules down there as much as any Western nation involved did and has meanwhile done.
 
Chagos said:
Oh give over!:roll:

If you read back to my previous posts (of yesterday) you'll see that I mentioned just about everybody that is discernible. Those that I personally saw in the 60s and those that can be discerned from various reports today.

If you want to go accusing anyone of picking any particular entity, look at your generalization of "un-Westerness", by which the barbarity we see is exclusively down to those that are not like we are. IOW orientals.

Quite apart from that being way off the mark, as I already pointed out. Alone the Brits chucked Queensberry rules down there as much as any Western nation involved did and has meanwhile done.
Click to expand...

At some point the folks who want to blame the west for everything need to give it a rest. This has nothing to do with the US selling weapons, the Brits, or certainly the Israelis (which is about as big a stretch as you can get, unless you think the Israelis are the centre of all the negative webs all over the world, which I know isnt an uncommon position among those who are “only anti-Israeli and not antisemetic”.

This is a power play between two middle eastern brutal theocratic dictatorships, neither of which care even a little bit for any human rights at all.

And yes, that is 100% par for the course in that part of the world and has been forever, so spare me the racism vapours


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HERA the Stars said:
As long as Iran remains in Yemen, the war will continue. Such a terrible war, are there any children left... seems they suffered too much to be children
Click to expand...

As long as Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Senegal, Jordan, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Turkey all remain in Yemen the war will continue. There's blame enough to go round all of them.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
At some point the folks who want to blame the west for everything need to give it a rest.
Click to expand...
At some point the folks who want to pursue generalizing platitudes in place of making the effort of analysing complex political constellations, would be best advised to just remain silent. That goes for those very same folks refusing, out of sheer intellectual laziness, to consider any more in-depth analysis that might be on offer.
This has nothing to do with the US selling weapons, the Brits, or certainly the Israelis
Click to expand...
At some point the folks who want to pursue generalizing platitudes in place of making the effort of analysing complex political constellations, would be best advised to just remain silent. That goes for those very same folks refusing, out of sheer intellectual laziness, to consider any more in-depth analysis that might be on offer.

Especially when supplementing that stance with the irrational accusation of being victimized, so as to better be able to play the victimhood card, like here:
(which is about as big a stretch as you can get, unless you think the Israelis are the centre of all the negative webs all over the world, which I know isnt an uncommon position among those who are “only anti-Israeli and not antisemetic”.
Click to expand...
So pointing out that Israel has logical (and as such legitimate) interests in Iranian influence not spreading any further than it is currently doing to its North, is anti Israeli and just an inch away from anti-semitism. :roll:

I've spoken out in defence of Israeli interests on these forums more often than I can count, so spare me this platitudinous BS.
This is a power play between two middle eastern brutal theocratic dictatorships, neither of which care even a little bit for any human rights at all.
Click to expand...
It is a power play between far more than just those two, but if you wish to stick to simplistic explanations to serve own convenience, so be it.
And yes, that is 100% par for the course in that part of the world and has been forever, so spare me the racism vapours
Click to expand...
Neither the Iranians, nor the Arabs, nor Russians, nor Americans, nor Syrians, nor Iraqis nor Yemenite hill tribes or other Yemenites are a race, so why don't YOU spare ME the racism vapours.

I pointed out your simplicity in assigning the whole mess to combatants' un-Westerness, that was all.
 
Andalublue said:
As long as Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Senegal, Jordan, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Turkey all remain in Yemen the war will continue. There's blame enough to go round all of them.
Click to expand...
...............not to forget Russia which is merely not actively engaged in Yemen for the simple reason of being already over-stretched further North.
A recent comment by the ministry of foreign affairs in Moscow illustrates this. The language and means used to describe events in Aden and Taiz reveal Russia’s underlying position. The reference to the advance by anti-Houthi forces in mid-October last year as “hostilities [which] have been going on for a month and a half” ignores the context completely; none of the pre-October violence by the Houthis was mentioned. Nor was the months-long Houthi siege of Taiz referred to by the ministry.
Click to expand...
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160122-russias-role-in-the-yemen-conflict/
 
Beyond which I agree of course. There are no innocents in this fracas, all adding fuel in pursuit of own individual interests.
 
Westphalian said:
What will stop the West selling weapons to the Saudis?
Click to expand...

Lol. The indignation of the Russian who had no problems with Putin flattening Syrian cities with carpet bombing.

Too funny.
 
Andalublue said:
As long as Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Senegal, Jordan, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Turkey all remain in Yemen the war will continue. There's blame enough to go round all of them.
Click to expand...

Yemen is a pawn between Iran and Saudi Arabia... the rest are profiteers, scavangers. Yemen is a perfect platform for Iran to incite dissent and launch attacks in Saudi Arabia, as long as Iran uses it Saudi Arabia cannot afford to ignore the Yemeni conflict. It would be disastrous for Saudi Arabia's oil exports (and the rest of the world who needs it) if Iran controlled the Bab-el-Mandeb, the equivalent of an Iranian grip around Saudi's throat. Yemeni's will continued to be crushed between those two countries
 
Last edited:
Saudi exports most of its crude (near 80 pct) thru Ras Tanura in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf and mostly to Japan, China, India and S. Korea.

In this the Bab el Mandeb (entrance to or exit from the Red Sea) is totally insignificant.:roll:

If Iran wanted to grab Saudi by the throat, the Straits of Hormuz would provide the far better opportunity, except for any such move resulting in all out war with Iran and Saudi not being the only adversary by far.

It would pay to actually know what one is talking about before posting.
 
Chagos said:
Saudi exports most of its crude (near 80 pct) thru Ras Tanura in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf and mostly to Japan, China, India and S. Korea.

In this the Bab el Mandeb (entrance to or exit from the Red Sea) is totally insignificant.:roll:

If Iran wanted to grab Saudi by the throat, the Straits of Hormuz would provide the far better opportunity, except for any such move resulting in all out war with Iran and Saudi not being the only adversary by far.

It would pay to actually know what one is talking about before posting.
Click to expand...


What you are missing is that Iran will have a presence in 2 of Saudi Arabia's 3 sea lanes, I think it's a big deal even if you don't. Your arrogance is akin to assholeness

20150509_MAM963_0.png


I thought you were going to ignore me, are you over your tantrum now
 
HERA the Stars said:
What you are missing is that Iran will have a presence in 2 of Saudi Arabia's 3 sea lanes, I think it's a big deal even if you don't.
Click to expand...

And conversely, Saudi Arabia has a permanent presence in Iran's only significant sea lane through the Straits of Hormuz. What does that signify? Mutually assured blockade? They are both aggressive oil exporters playing out their regional rivalry at the expense of the Yemenis. Why you believe that one's involvement is lamentable and the other's acceptable is anyone's guess.
 
Saudi would have the options of either using the Petroline or the East-West pipeline to transport oil to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, well away from the Bab el Mandeb for unhindered passage thru Suez to the Med. And where Houthi targeting of Saudi ships down there has indeed been a nuisance a couple of times this year (two rocket attacks on two tankers, little to no damage) has led to Saudi briefly suspending shipments thru the Bab, services have meanwhile been resumed.

The claim that Houthi dominance over the Bab el Mandeb would (or even could) strangle Saudi (and thus its oil exports) remains utter nonsense.

As pointed out (and to be repeated here) knowing what one posts about would help in not cluttering up the information value of threads with otherwise irrelevant opinion pieces, neither based on research nor representing any knowledge..
 
Andalublue said:
And conversely, Saudi Arabia has a permanent presence in Iran's only significant sea lane through the Straits of Hormuz. What does that signify? Mutually assured blockade? They are both aggressive oil exporters playing out their regional rivalry at the expense of the Yemenis. Why you believe that one's involvement is lamentable and the other's acceptable is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the Chinese are militarising the South China Sea, to protect their shipping lanes because without them you can choke an economy to zero. In my opinion this is one of the reasons Iran is interested in Yemen to begin with.

There is no mutual blockade because Saudi Arabia can't blockade Iran even if they wanted to. Saudi Arabia has the Americans to protect them because Iran can bring the whole world to a standstill if Iran does mange to block those arteries. Much of this oil goes to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest economies via these two shipping routes to the east.

Having said this Iran is more likely to harass and delay shipments, perhaps enough for Iranian oil to fill the void left by Saudi slowed supply.

I honestly find it astonishing that people don't consider this possibility, to me it's a glaringly obvious threat to Saudi Arabia and MbS also think so therefore the agressive Saudi response in Yemen, or do you think he just woke up one day saying " ahhh good day for a war... let's see.. how about Yemen"
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
And conversely, Saudi Arabia has a permanent presence in Iran's only significant sea lane through the Straits of Hormuz. What does that signify? Mutually assured blockade? They are both aggressive oil exporters playing out their regional rivalry at the expense of the Yemenis. Why you believe that one's involvement is lamentable and the other's acceptable is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

A Houthi controlled Yemen (if it came to be) would have no influence on Saudi oil exports worth mentioning. The main reason why Saudi (and the coalition it leads) is engaged down there, is that it wants no Iran-influenced neighbour on its Southern flank. Just as in the sixties it didn't want an Egypt-directed (and thus pan-Arabist) neighbor there either.

Both seen as a threat to the rule of the House of Saud.

And, incidentally, with Saudi making as much a mess of today's intervention as it did then. IOW getting nowhere fast and further and further away from the envisaged victory in both cases. Simply because Saudi lacks and lacked the clout, means and manpower to occupy Yemen, partially or totally.

The civil war in what was then North Yemen finally ended in a stalemate and led to peace talks. One can only hope this'll happen now as well and preferably fast.
 
Andalublue said:
Why you believe that one's involvement is lamentable and the other's acceptable is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

I just want to address this ^^^ Andal I think you are misreading or misunderstanding some of the underlying reasons for my posts. My focus and interest are often "the reasons why". My being here, posting on this site is not to pick a side and push my agenda. I'm not here to judge, approve or discredit, I'm here to learn and understand and if my posts have misled you to think I'm pro Saudi or pro Iran then I can tell you right now that while I can see "why" both are involved in Yemen, it does not mean I approve of either's actions in this war.
 
HERA the Stars said:
Why do you think the Chinese are militarising the South China Sea, to protect their shipping lanes because without them you can choke an economy to zero. In my opinion this is one of the reasons Iran is interested in Yemen to begin with.
Click to expand...
With or without a friendly government in Yemen, Iran has no ability to choke the Saudi economy to zero. None whatever, I'm delighted to point out.

There is no mutual blockade because Saudi Arabia can't blockade Iran even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Nor Iran Saudi. The Saudis have outlets to the Med via Suez and while they and the Americans have expressed concern at the prospect of conflict around Hormuz disrupting shipping, they have also stated their ability to keep the lanes open, come what may. Even the UAE are confident of maintain export flow with their Fujairah pipeline project. The Saudis would dearly like the option of creating a route to the Arabian Sea via Yemen, and there we can probably see their motivation for the Yemen intervention, but to claim that Iran threatens to choke their economy is wild exaggeration.

Having said this Iran is more likely to harass and delay shipments, perhaps enough for Iranian oil to fill the void left by Saudi slowed supply
Click to expand...
. You seem to see all the threat to oil shipments coming from the Iranian side. Given that all of Iran's oil shipping takes place through the Strait of Hormuz, they must feel even more threatened by an aggressive Saudi/US policy on the Strait than vice versa.

I honestly find it astonishing that people don't consider this possibility, to me it's a glaringly obvious threat to Saudi Arabia and MbS also think so therefore the agressive Saudi response in Yemen, or do you think he just woke up one day saying " ahhh good day for a war... let's see.. how about Yemen"
Click to expand...
Saudi motivation for their intervention in Yemen is explained above, and it's not purely defensive, it's significantly aggressive too.
 
Chagos said:
Indeed.

A Houthi controlled Yemen (if it came to be) would have no influence on Saudi oil exports worth mentioning. The main reason why Saudi (and the coalition it leads) is engaged down there, is that it wants no Iran-influenced neighbour on its Southern flank. Just as in the sixties it didn't want an Egypt-directed (and thus pan-Arabist) neighbor there either.

Both seen as a threat to the rule of the House of Saud.

And, incidentally, with Saudi making as much a mess of today's intervention as it did then. IOW getting nowhere fast and further and further away from the envisaged victory in both cases. Simply because Saudi lacks and lacked the clout, means and manpower to occupy Yemen, partially or totally.

The civil war in what was then North Yemen finally ended in a stalemate and led to peace talks. One can only hope this'll happen now as well and preferably fast.
Click to expand...

Your logic confounds me... Iran can't be there because it makes strategic sense, because then Saudi Arabia has a reason to engage in this war and therefore bombing a bus full of kids are ok... insane! You deny all logical reasons for Iran's presence just so you can condemn Saudi Arabia... why is this necessary?

How about... Iran is in Yemen because it makes strategic sense, therefore Saudi Arabia has a reason to be in this war in Yemen... and the bombing of a bus full of kids is not ok.
 
HERA the Stars said:
I just want to address this ^^^ Andal I think you are misreading or misunderstanding some of the underlying reasons for my posts. My focus and interest are often "the reasons why". My being here, posting on this site is not to pick a side and push my agenda. I'm not here to judge, approve or discredit, I'm here to learn and understand and if my posts have misled you to think I'm pro Saudi or pro Iran then I can tell you right now that while I can see "why" both are involved in Yemen, it does not mean I approve of either's actions in this war.
Click to expand...

And yet you are placing all of the burden of guilt on one side of the conflict. If you don't mean to approve of either's actions in the war, what Saudi action in Yemen do you disapprove of?
 
Andalublue said:
With or without a friendly government in Yemen, Iran has no ability to choke the Saudi economy to zero. None whatever, I'm delighted to point out.

Nor Iran Saudi. The Saudis have outlets to the Med via Suez and while they and the Americans have expressed concern at the prospect of conflict around Hormuz disrupting shipping, they have also stated their ability to keep the lanes open, come what may. Even the UAE are confident of maintain export flow with their Fujairah pipeline project. The Saudis would dearly like the option of creating a route to the Arabian Sea via Yemen, and there we can probably see their motivation for the Yemen intervention, but to claim that Iran threatens to choke their economy is wild exaggeration.

. You seem to see all the threat to oil shipments coming from the Iranian side. Given that all of Iran's oil shipping takes place through the Strait of Hormuz, they must feel even more threatened by an aggressive Saudi/US policy on the Strait than vice versa.

Saudi motivation for their intervention in Yemen is explained above, and it's not purely defensive, it's significantly aggressive too.
Click to expand...

See my post to Chagos, I basically disagree with you.
 
Andalublue said:
And yet you are placing all of the burden of guilt on one side of the conflict. If you don't mean to approve of either's actions in the war, what Saudi action in Yemen do you disapprove of?
Click to expand...

same answer as to Chagos

Your logic confounds me... Iran can't be there because it makes strategic sense, because then Saudi Arabia has a reason to engage in this war and therefore bombing a bus full of kids are ok... insane! You deny all logical reasons for Iran's presence just so you can condemn Saudi Arabia... why is this necessary?

How about... Iran is in Yemen because it makes strategic sense, therefore Saudi Arabia has a reason to be in this war in Yemen... and the bombing of a bus full of kids is not ok.
Click to expand...
 
HERA the Stars said:
same answer as to Chagos
Click to expand...

You avoid the question, I see.

Both Iran and the Saudi coalition are participating in the destruction of Yemen for strategic purposes. That's not in question. It's just that you appear to see the Saudi's strategic aims as having a greater degree of legitimacy that Iran's. You also appear to assume that Iran is more threatening of the Saudi coalition's economic wellbeing than vice versa, and that doesn't make any sense to me. The South China Sea analogy seems equally applicable to both sides.
 
Andalublue said:
You avoid the question, I see.

Both Iran and the Saudi coalition are participating in the destruction of Yemen for strategic purposes. That's not in question. It's just that you appear to see the Saudi's strategic aims as having a greater degree of legitimacy that Iran's. You also appear to assume that Iran is more threatening of the Saudi coalition's economic wellbeing than vice versa, and that doesn't make any sense to me. The South China Sea analogy seems equally applicable to both sides.
Click to expand...

:lol: it's because they do, Iran is not under threat from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is under threat from Iran via Hezbollah & Quds forces via Houthi's. Iran is waging a proxy war in Saudi Arabia's backyard... kinda makes it a bigger problem for Saudi Arabia

The South China Sea analogy seems equally applicable to both sides.
Click to expand...

The South China seas is China attempting to control the shipping routes because they are extremely important to China however these are also equally important to South Korea and Japan. Not only that, there are (although unconfirmed) considered to be large deposits of natural gas & oil that belong to the Philipines and surrounding countries also being seized by China.... and of course Taiwan. Whole different ballgame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom