Pentagon Launches Operation ‘Guardian of Prosperity’ to Protect Red Sea from Houthi Attacks

Iran-backed Houthis fire on US Navy ship answering distress call from Israel-linked tanker (msn.com)

Ahhh... the boogey man (world war) has returned. I guess we should get on our knees and beg them to stop... maybe send them a few billion dollars? Or when our ships get sunk and our people die... send them a strongly worded letter?

Or we could take out their launch sites.

 

lol... LOL.... LOLOLOL.... ROFLMAO!!

 

?
what did you, honestly, find funny?

 

Houthis obey, worship, and depend on Iran like a suckling on its mommy.

 

I wish.
Iran and the Houthis do have a convergence of interests on many fronts, but if there is a conflict of interest/dictates, the Houthis will follow their own path.

 

Btw, those who underestimate the Houthis, do so at their own peril. The Houthis successfully withstood more than a decade long onslaught by a 14-state coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which included direct US and UK assistance from logistical to intelligence support. Never-mind those F-15s and F-16s dropping bombs on them, or the Abrams tanks used, or any of the munitions, were all indisputably supplied by the US et al.

 

And yet its government was democratically elected. It isn't to support democracy. It is to impede Russia from gathering territory. All wars are about territory in the end.

 

LOL.

 

Well it looks like our allies are not signing up for this.

What is U.S.-led Red Sea coalition and which countries are backing it?


WHAT ARE OTHER NATIONS SAYING?
- FRANCE
"France's Defence Ministry said it supported efforts to secure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and surrounding area and said it already operated in the region. But it said its ships would stay under French command and did not say if it would deploy more naval forces.


France has a naval base in the United Arab Emirates and 1,500 troops in Djibouti. Its frigate Languedoc is now in the Red Sea.

- ITALY
Italy's Defence Ministry said it would send naval frigate Virginio Fasan to the Red Sea to protect its national interests in response to specific requests made by Italian shipowners.

It said this was part of its existing operations and was not part of Operation Prosperity Guardian.


- SPAIN
Spain's Defence Ministry said it would only participate in NATO-led missions or EU-coordinated operations. "We will not participate unilaterally in the Red Sea operation," it said.

- BRITAIN
Britain said destroyer HMS Diamond would join Operation Prosperity Guardian. Britain's defence ministry said the coalition would operate as part of the U.S.-led CMF.

- GREECE
Greece said on Thursday it would send a naval frigate to the Red Sea and that it would participate in Operation Prosperity Guardian.

- OTHER COUNTRIES
The Netherlands said it would send two staff officers and Norway said it would send 10 naval officers to Bahrain, the headquarters of CMF. Denmark said on Wednesday that it would take part in the operation, sending one officer."


Hey guys, America's back.

 

I don't think it is a partisan issue at all. After all, when Saudi Aramco facilities were hit taking them out of operation for many days, all Trump did was to basically tell the Saudis they are on their own! Of course, pro Trump outlets perhaps massaged the message differently:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/16/tru...d-to-the-attacks-on-saudi-oil-facilities.html
Trump says he’s in no rush to respond to the attacks on Saudi oil facilities

 

The difference was, Trump didn't try to put together a coalition that his "allies" had little to no interest in. Maybe he called and asked them first. In this case, it looks like we announced the operation, and just sort of assumed our allies would be happy to join.

 

I think the real partisan difference relates to the degree of dehumanization, vilification, threats, and bravado that is employed. That and a greater willingness on one side of the isle to dismiss international law as a hindrance as opposed to a weapon to be used against America's adversaries.

 

Following that reasoning we would be long since bankrupt by now.
There is a cut-loss function.
Also are you aware that we got what we wanted from Vietnam?

 

What did we "want" from Vietnam?

 

The biggest mistake regarding Vietnam was ignoring Ho when he came to the US for support against the French occupiers. Ho was more nationalist than communist, and snubbing him drove him to the opposite side, leading to the war.

 

I've heard that argument but it ignores the obvious. The French were a WW2 ally so the U.S. didn't think it could support a revolution against their interests in Indochina.

 

OK I admit I don't see what that has to do with this particular operation.

 

If the Republicans were in power (so to speak), they would be using a lot more threats, might have even pulled another assassination at some point, would have pushed it all to the brink of war, and if Iran didn't blink, they would. Or alternatively use nukes.

 

Arguable depending on the Republican. If President Lyndsay Graham is ever sworn in as President, his first act is likely to launch nukes.

The current administration is more likely to stumble into that due to incompetence.

 

Lyndsey Graham's first act might have been hitting Iranian oil platforms, imagining this is the 1980s. But he probably would blink. He looks to the pro-Israeli lobby for "guidance". He was for hitting General Soleimani when the Israelis were cooperating with Trump to find an opportune plot to take him outside Iran, in Iraq. The minute Netanyahu got cold feet, so did Graham!

But the first predicate to make a non-existential use of nukes possibly acceptable is to dehumanize the enemy. That makes crimes on a vast scale possible...

 

what makes you think any of the Republican candidates would be inclined to use nuclear weapons?

 

it will depend on whether Iran blinks or not, which in turn depends on a lot more facts and circumstances leading to a military confrontation. But if Iran's leaders decided to stand their ground, and if they could keep Iran's own population at bay, they could do such damage to everything (from the global economy to US bases and interests, etc), that the US would feel it has to use nukes not to suffer a humiliating defeat.

 

Yup.. and all because Iran supplied, assisted, backed, financed, trained and enabled the Houthis.

 

ah...nukes big nasty scarry things......makes everyone wobbly......gives people that haven't a f**kin clue something to worry about.....

 

I don't think that's required. Our entire Cold War strategy was that the human and civilizational cost would be too high. That's what MAD was all about.

Luckily, a President Graham scenario is highly unlikely. The current administration makeup is what we're dealing with through this crisis and likely will continue with basically the same crew after the US elections next year. Given that, there are a few observations:

The Israeli Lobby is not what it was. The long term trend on US establishment (Democratic Party) politics is slowly moving away with that. There is an entire generation of Americans growing up to think that Israel is a "colonizer." There is only so much money you can throw at a problem like that.

Jewish demography is also changing the influence of Jews politically in the US. Secular or Reform Jews, although very left leaning, have an unsustainable intermarriage rate. Plus, even when they do marry they have a low number of children, like the rest of US society. What we consider "Jews" in the US in the future are largely going to be Hassidim or Orthodox, and they lean right, so as a result will be cut out of political power.