Reports from Reuters say that fighter jets and tomahawk strikes have begun from UK and US ships - this follows an online Cabinet meeting at 7.45 tonight (with leaders of the opposition). It would appear that we are now involved in a war albeit at this stage targets being ammunition sites. Will it stop there or will we end up in an Israeli type situation where collateral damage is inevitable? Will the Houthis carry on regardless and will it spill further afield? All very worrying.
0
Comments
Read that the drones they are firing cost around $20k whereas the anti drone missiles fired by the west coast around $1m.
You can do a huge amount of economic damage at a 50:1 ratio.
Backed by Iran and closely linked with Hamas.
Yes of course it would make things more expensive, and this looks like a conflict over economics.
The shipping should absolutely not be attacked by Houthi forces in the region, but the use of deadly force in response is questionable.
The military industrial complex would urge the use of force by all parties because it boosts sales.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
Also Sunak is head of Operations for the Houthis.
Pass me another spliff.
You mean a British overseas territory (or whatever they’re called) was invaded by a foreign power?
Or destroy and maim and terrify and add more reasons for further conflict, all in order to get cheap T-shirts from Primark.
Maybe I am missing something blindingly obvious, but what I do know from observed experience is it is usually the innocent who suffer most from military action.
Said rebels have now found a part of the forum to wage their war on.
He's a midget
I have suggested an alternative to military retaliation.
Go the long and more expensive way round.
Should more future conflicts be lined up in the way the UK and the USA seem to be doing, and risking war with Iran?
I would like to know more about that.
I have suggested an alternative to conflict, unsatisfactory and expensive for sure, but how expensive is the military action going to be?
Sad really.
Unfortunately they have now decided that the world should not be held to ransom by terrorists who, if they go unchecked, will continue to grow in strength and power thanks to the, Iranian, state sponsored backing of probably the most dangerous regime in the middle east.
To suggest that we let Houthi rebels continue and expand the Iranian backed attack by willingly going the long way round is appeasement writ large..
But the question is how bullies are responded to.
I think the notion that military strike backs are the only choice is open to question.
I have suggested one alternative, but on the television last night I heard a military and diplomatic expert on Newsnight suggest that a military response may not be that effective because the protagonists are fast moving, hard to locate, use lower grade weaponry for higher results, and are flexible and have back up resources.
I don’t believe there is only one way to tackle this problem, whatever stance Hawks want to take.