Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US-backed Genocide in Yemen has killed 85,000 children

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    In 2016, under Obama, 4 of the top 5 purchasers of US arms were part of the coalition fighting Yemen.
    In 2017, under Trump, 1 of the top 5 was. In November, Trump eliminated the mid-air refueling policy.
    This article is very, very left of center (reparations for the Yemeni people) but it does provide data on the arms sales.
    The Obama and Trump administrations have supported a military coalition that has inflicted profound and deadly damage on Yemen. A human rights scholar says the US is complicit in genocide.

    Comment


    • #32
      Good read from Andrew Bacevich

      Originally posted at TomDispatch. It’s now more than 17 years later, years in which American commanding generals in Afghanistan repeatedly hailed - Andrew Bacevich for Antiwar.com
      If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
      - Terence McKenna

      Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

      How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
        Having re-set the question, here's the "realpolitik" question/concerns that I have:

        1) To what extent are we engaged directly in the Yemeni civil war, versus indirectly via the same level of military and political support we've provided to Saudi Arabia for generations?

        2) What legitimate American and/or global security and economic interests are served by our strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, and how does that balance against the harm to American and/or global security and economic and humanitarian interests that are furthered by our strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia?

        3) If we were able to somehow cut off our impacts on the Yemeni Civil War (either separate and apart from our broader relationship with Saudi Arabia or through a broader material change of posture in our relationship with Saudi Arabia), what would happen? Would that make it easier for the UN or other international organizations to broker and maintain a peace and get humanitarian aid to Yemenis? Or would that just result in China or Russia or Israel or some other international actor(s) stepping into the vacuum to profit off arms sales to and closer strategic/economic ties with Saudi Arabia, and at what cost to American and/or global security, economic, geopolitical and humanitarian interests?

        4) Do any of these questions have much if anything to do with the US military/defense budget? Is our military support to Saudi Arabia and directly or indirectly to the Saudi-backed side in the Yemeni civil war occurring at a net cost or a net profit to the US or to its companies (and thus GDP and tax revenues)? If it's a net profit, that doesn't really solve any of the moral issues involved, but it would suggest that cutting the military budget isn't the relevant lever vis-à-vis Yemen or the humanitarian crisis therein.
        This is well-stated and not inflammatory. I will try to get some thoughts together later today in answer to these questions.

        And, I think Gregg points out the issue I had to begin in TW thread title. The title was definitely bait, and I took it hook, line and sinker. I'm not sorry for doing that, as when you push buttons that I tackle every day, I'm gonna come out fighting.
        "Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
        - Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane

        i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
        - nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.

        Comment


        • #34
          For what it's worth, the Senate passed a resolution today to end the United States' involvement in Yemen's Civil war. The resolution was supported by all of the Democrats and 14 Republicans. However, some of the Republicans said they voted "Yes" only because they want to kickoff a broader debate on the Saudi Arabia - Khashoggi killing.

          Comment


          • #35
            This isn't directly related, but I found it share worthy and didn't know where else to put it. I had a conversation with a student from Yemen today who let me know that several members of his family are returning to Yemen soon to purchase large quantities of Khat at a steep discount compared to what it can be gotten for in the states (it is a controlled substance here, but not in Yemen, where its use is ubiquitous).

            I don't know if that speaks more of the importance of the stimulant for his family/culture, or of how this horrific conflict has not yet touched all parts of Yemen. For his part, when I mentioned my sense of sadness for the events there, he seemed not all that upset by them, or even fully aware of the scope of things. Maybe that speaks to being an 18 year old 6 years removed from the area. I guess it goes to show that not only can folks far removed from atrocities be insensitive to them, even folks close to the conflict can be more worried about their immediate needs and wants, and more concerned about how such things affect travel plans and the procurement of recreational plants. It made me think of when people get stuck in traffic because of a serious accident and think, what bad luck I'm having to be stuck here and late, when of course the people in the accident are having it much worse.

            I don't share this as an excuse for folks here who may not think enough about what is happening their and our involvement in it. I just found it an interesting reminder that tunnel vision is not a uniquely American trait. Most folks live their lives focused on one foot in front of the other.
            Last edited by Sour Masher; 11-28-2018, 09:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by OaklandA's View Post
              For what it's worth, the Senate passed a resolution today to end the United States' involvement in Yemen's Civil war. The resolution was supported by all of the Democrats and 14 Republicans. However, some of the Republicans said they voted "Yes" only because they want to kickoff a broader debate on the Saudi Arabia - Khashoggi killing.

              https://www.thedailybeast.com/senate...ement-in-yemen
              I was extremely disturbed by the Khashoggi murder. Maybe some good will come if it, if it is what helped shine some light on this. I wonder, do you think this would have come to a vote without Khasoggi's murder and Trump's response to it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                I was extremely disturbed by the Khashoggi murder. Maybe some good will come if it, if it is what helped shine some light on this. I wonder, do you think this would have come to a vote without Khasoggi's murder and Trump's response to it?
                Probably not. Lindsey Graham, who voted in support of the resolution, has previously backed U.S. efforts to support Saudi Arabia in Yemen. This time, he only voted Yes because he wants the White House to be tougher on Saudi Arabia for the Khashoggi killing, and he is trying to use the Yemen issue to get more answers from the CIA and the White House.

                Comment


                • #38
                  LOL. The hypocrisy of the US going after Saudi Arabia for the Khashoggi killing staggers the imagination.
                  I'm just here for the baseball.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by chancellor View Post
                    LOL. The hypocrisy of the US going after Saudi Arabia for the Khashoggi killing staggers the imagination.
                    Because we were complicit in the ploy to lure him to his torture and death, or because you have evidence that we torture and murder journalists? Where is the hypocrisy?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                      Because we were complicit in the ploy to lure him to his torture and death, or because you have evidence that we torture and murder journalists? Where is the hypocrisy?
                      The hypocrisy is that we didn't do shit when 19 of their citizens committed the worst terrorist attack in history.
                      If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
                      - Terence McKenna

                      Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

                      How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                        Because we were complicit in the ploy to lure him to his torture and death, or because you have evidence that we torture and murder journalists? Where is the hypocrisy?
                        First off, the US was not complicit in Khashoggi’s torture and death, despite the breathless opinions of the HuffPos and Voxites; we didn’t associate with nor participate in this incident. Which, to a degree, did surprise me, as it had both the unholy trinity of ruthlessness, ill-planning, and outright stupidity that often marks CIA hits gone bad.

                        The staggering hypocrisy goes beyond what DMT has mentioned, though he’s absolutely right in his statement. Moreover, not only does the US look the other way when many other countries do the same thing – China, Venezuela, Russia, South Africa – heck, we’ve done similar ourselves. And let’s not forget not only is killing US citizens without due process at presidential direction accepted policy in the US, the Obama administration essentially codified it and legally defended it. So, if we can kill our own citizens that we deem an enemy of the state without due process, explain to me how the US holds the moral high ground in condemning any state actor that does the same?

                        In fact, I’ll posit that many of our extra-territorial killings are significantly more immoral than the Khashoggi assassination since not only did we kill the target, we often also killed non-combatants in the same operation.
                        I'm just here for the baseball.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X