Why Are We At War in Yemen?

Clovis said:
Nixon reduced troop commitments in Vietnam while increasing the air campaign, in spite of the fact that the air campaign was shown to not be working at all, because he believed that the public would react positively.
Click to expand...
good point. That air campaign though was hardly covert. It was pretty massive in scope.
 
Thank the gods he's a Peace Prize recipient, because he sure looks like, (what was it they called W?.. Oh yeah), a chickenhawk.
 
anyone think the u.s. gov is trying to just keep poking the middle east until we get another terrorist attack so they can start another global war?
 
Professor Baxter said:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...013/august/11/why-are-we-at-war-in-yemen.aspx

Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a “suspected militant,” but Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist “most wanted” list.


This significant escalation of US attacks on Yemen coincides with Yemeni President Hadi’s meeting with President Obama in Washington earlier this month. Hadi was installed into power with the help of the US government after a 2011 coup against its long-time ruler, President Saleh. It is in his interest to have the US behind him, as his popularity is very low in Yemen and he faces the constant threat of another coup.


In Washington, President Obama praised the cooperation of President Hadi in fighting the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This was just before the US Administration announced that a huge unspecified threat was forcing the closure of nearly two dozen embassies in the area, including in Yemen. According to the Administration, the embassy closings were prompted by an NSA-intercepted conference call at which some 20 al-Qaeda leaders discussed attacking the West. Many remain skeptical about this dramatic claim, which was made just as some in Congress were urging greater scrutiny of NSA domestic spying programs.

The US has been involved in Yemen for some time, and the US presence in Yemen is much greater than we are led to believe. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:


“At the heart of the U.S.-Yemeni cooperation is a joint command center in Yemen, where officials from the two countries evaluate intelligence gathered by America and other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, say U.S. and Yemeni officials. There, they decide when and how to launch missile strikes against the highly secretive list of alleged al Qaeda operatives approved by the White House for targeted killing, these people say.”


Far from solving the problem of extremists in Yemen, however, this US presence in the country seems to be creating more extremism. According to professor Gregory Johnson of Princeton University, an expert on Yemen, the civilian “collateral damage” from US drone strikes on al-Qaeda members actually attracts more al-Qaeda recruits:


“There are strikes that kill civilians. There are strikes that kill women and children. And when you kill people in Yemen, these are people who have families. They have clans. And they have tribes. And what we're seeing is that the United States might target a particular individual because they see him as a member of al-Qaeda. But what's happening on the ground is that he's being defended as a tribesman.”


The US government is clearly at war in Yemen. It is claimed they are fighting al-Qaeda, but the drone strikes are creating as many or more al-Qaeda members as they are eliminating. Resentment over civilian casualties is building up the danger of blowback, which is a legitimate threat to us that is unfortunately largely ignored. Also, the US is sending mixed signals by attacking al-Qaeda in Yemen while supporting al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria.

This cycle of intervention producing problems that require more intervention to “solve” impoverishes us and makes us more, not less, vulnerable. Can anyone claim this old approach is successful? Has it produced one bit of stability in the region? Does it have one success story? There is an alternative. It is called non-interventionism. We should try it. First step would be pulling out of Yemen.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...013/august/11/why-are-we-at-war-in-yemen.aspx
Click to expand...

Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a “suspected militant,” but Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist “most wanted” list.

Did Yemen recently decide to trade oil for another currency than the US Dollar? Did they make it more substantial than the US Dollar? Most of these wars are to protect America as an out of control Capitalist Country after a Country decides they want to trade oil for "whatever" over the US Dollar.

Generally we stage a coup d'état, but not always. We ran guns into Libya through BENGHAZI and took over Libya for this. We ran guns into Syria through BENGHAZI to take over Syria. Yet someone knew this was a weapons station for the CIA and attacked it. Everyone in the world knows Benghazi was a gun running station except for Americans who never noticed Libian and Syrian rebels had brand new American military weapons (politicians bought by military weapons contractors).

I think if these bone head capitalists knew that we were going to fail without war they would vote capitalistic war everytime. I tend to think that honesty, freedom and being true to yourself and your Country is key.
 
Professor Baxter said:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...013/august/11/why-are-we-at-war-in-yemen.aspx

Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a “suspected militant,” but Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist “most wanted” list.


This significant escalation of US attacks on Yemen coincides with Yemeni President Hadi’s meeting with President Obama in Washington earlier this month. Hadi was installed into power with the help of the US government after a 2011 coup against its long-time ruler, President Saleh. It is in his interest to have the US behind him, as his popularity is very low in Yemen and he faces the constant threat of another coup.


In Washington, President Obama praised the cooperation of President Hadi in fighting the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This was just before the US Administration announced that a huge unspecified threat was forcing the closure of nearly two dozen embassies in the area, including in Yemen. According to the Administration, the embassy closings were prompted by an NSA-intercepted conference call at which some 20 al-Qaeda leaders discussed attacking the West. Many remain skeptical about this dramatic claim, which was made just as some in Congress were urging greater scrutiny of NSA domestic spying programs.

The US has been involved in Yemen for some time, and the US presence in Yemen is much greater than we are led to believe. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:


“At the heart of the U.S.-Yemeni cooperation is a joint command center in Yemen, where officials from the two countries evaluate intelligence gathered by America and other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, say U.S. and Yemeni officials. There, they decide when and how to launch missile strikes against the highly secretive list of alleged al Qaeda operatives approved by the White House for targeted killing, these people say.”


Far from solving the problem of extremists in Yemen, however, this US presence in the country seems to be creating more extremism. According to professor Gregory Johnson of Princeton University, an expert on Yemen, the civilian “collateral damage” from US drone strikes on al-Qaeda members actually attracts more al-Qaeda recruits:


“There are strikes that kill civilians. There are strikes that kill women and children. And when you kill people in Yemen, these are people who have families. They have clans. And they have tribes. And what we're seeing is that the United States might target a particular individual because they see him as a member of al-Qaeda. But what's happening on the ground is that he's being defended as a tribesman.”


The US government is clearly at war in Yemen. It is claimed they are fighting al-Qaeda, but the drone strikes are creating as many or more al-Qaeda members as they are eliminating. Resentment over civilian casualties is building up the danger of blowback, which is a legitimate threat to us that is unfortunately largely ignored. Also, the US is sending mixed signals by attacking al-Qaeda in Yemen while supporting al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria.

This cycle of intervention producing problems that require more intervention to “solve” impoverishes us and makes us more, not less, vulnerable. Can anyone claim this old approach is successful? Has it produced one bit of stability in the region? Does it have one success story? There is an alternative. It is called non-interventionism. We should try it. First step would be pulling out of Yemen.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...013/august/11/why-are-we-at-war-in-yemen.aspx
Click to expand...

 
Thought Thieves said:
anyone think the u.s. gov is trying to just keep poking the middle east until we get another terrorist attack so they can start another global war?
Click to expand...
No....I honestly thing they're out there killing truly bad people who mean Americans harm. Whats at issue here though is the old ethical question of do the ends justify the means?
 
Carlos Danger said:
Obama is taking an interesting gamble here. He is betting that American rejection of Bush is that he conducted wars in the ground where thousands of troops were in danger (rather than just the occasional special operation). He is therefore concluding that we will ignore an entire drone campaign. I like this.
Click to expand...

It's no gamble. He knows that the Republicans will only clamor for him to use more excessive force but he is in no jeopardy of losing those who demand strong action. Meanwhile, he does not expect to lose those who claim to want peace because who else are they going to support? The McCainiacs? The librarians?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What were you saying then?
Click to expand...

What I said was that we're at war with a concept: terror; as opposed to a particular nation. A threat far more dangerous than a crazed third world dictator or a specific world power with archaic, yet massive, war-making potential.

As a result, we are at war with electronics, data, data collection, hacking, and a slew of other information retrieving data to an extent so expansive you nor I have no idea.

The concept of fighting war without soldiers is very near as we enter the technological realm of the 21st century. We need to be prepared.
 
Howey said:
What I said was that we're at war with a concept: terror; as opposed to a particular nation. A threat far more dangerous than a crazed third world dictator or a specific world power with archaic, yet massive, war-making potential.

As a result, we are at war with electronics, data, data collection, hacking, and a slew of other information retrieving data to an extent so expansive you nor I have no idea.

The concept of fighting war without soldiers is very near as we enter the technological realm of the 21st century. We need to be prepared.
Click to expand...

However the concept is framed, however the battlefield is drawn brother .. we're losing. The ONLY winners in this is the MIC and war-profiteers. But that's no secret.

Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .. same winners, same losers.

War is a Racket, USMC General Smedley Butler, 1935

Same winners, same losers

At what point do the American people demand an end to this madness .. regardless of what letter is behind the presidents name?
 
blackascoal said:
However the concept is framed, however the battlefield is drawn brother .. we're losing. The ONLY winners in this is the MIC and war-profiteers. But that's no secret.

Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .. same winners, same losers.

War is a Racket, USMC General Smedley Butler, 1935

Same winners, same losers

At what point do the American people demand an end to this madness .. regardless of what letter is behind the presidents name?
Click to expand...

I've always said we'll never have a nuclear war because all wars are fought for greed and personal gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top