Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Air Strikes In Yemen
Addick Addict
Posts: 39,767
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
-
About bloody time.2
-
The Houthis have some pretty serious firepower, could see something going quite wrong here.
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.0 -
Bad shit happening in Ecuador, New Guinea, now Yemen getting worse, Far Right on the rise. Worrying times.3
-
Got to make sure we stay onside with Saudi.1
-
Not sure the Houthis are far right.AddicksAddict said:Bad shit happening in Ecuador, New Guinea, now Yemen getting worse, Far Right on the rise. Worrying times.
Backed by Iran and closely linked with Hamas.1 -
I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.6 -
All I know, is that anyone that waits for £50 wins each month from premium bonds... would make a fortune investing in weapons manufacturers.1
-
In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...13 -
Agreed, its well known that Thatcher controlled Galtieari and ordered him to invade.Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
Also Sunak is head of Operations for the Houthis.
Pass me another spliff.20 -
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.5 - Sponsored links:
-
Will we see pictures of the Prime Minister in military fatigues soon?Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...0 -
“found a part of the world”Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
You mean a British overseas territory (or whatever they’re called) was invaded by a foreign power?6 -
If you look like losing the election, start a war.Same as Thatcher, she withdrew the single protection vessel patrolling the Falklands, knowing Argentina would see it as an invitation and started a full scale war when they did, playing the patriot card.Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
6 -
Chizz. Chizzing is the term used previously0
-
Go round Africa, stop for refuelling or whatever in various parts of the African coast and boost their economy.
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.2 -
Do you not see any parallel at all between a Conservative party flagging in the polls, engaging in a military expedition outside Europe and winning the subsequent election; and a Conservative party flagging in the polls and engaging in a military expedition outside Europe?Todds_right_hook said:Chizz. Chizzing is the term used previously5 -
Had a quick check to see if CL's worst fears have come true....yep, the HoC page has been fully locked down despite some glitches in the matrix having been exploited by forum rebels.
Said rebels have now found a part of the forum to wage their war on.17 -
Probably an action man suit.seth plum said:
Will we see pictures of the Prime Minister in military fatigues soon?Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
He's a midget6 -
No it shouldn’t be ignored.Charlton and on said:
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.
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?
0 -
I mean the “blinding obvious” is that the world cannot be held to ransom by a bunch of anti-Semitic warlords.seth plum said:Go round Africa, stop for refuelling or whatever in various parts of the African coast and boost their economy.
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.7 - Sponsored links:
-
He's a skinny fucker too. Might need a Barbie soldier outfit.blackpool72 said:
Probably an action man suit.seth plum said:
Will we see pictures of the Prime Minister in military fatigues soon?Chizz said:In 1982, Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular government were suffering badly in the polls and facing a heavy defeat to Labour at the next General Election. Thankfully they were able to find a part of the planet on which to wage a war, the result of which swelled their popularity enough to ensure a landslide election victory.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy...
He's a midget0 -
But what of the carbon footprint created by all those extra nautical miles? It's not an environmentally sustainable solution you're proposing Seth.seth plum said:
No it shouldn’t be ignored.Charlton and on said:
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.
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?4 -
It borders on obsessive doesn’t it. Just can’t let go some people.Big_Bad_World said:Had a quick check to see if CL's worst fears have come true....yep, the HoC page has been fully locked down despite some glitches in the matrix having been exploited by forum rebels.
Said rebels have now found a part of the forum to wage their war on.7 -
Is that how it is being framed? The world is being held to ransom?se9addick said:
I mean the “blinding obvious” is that the world cannot be held to ransom by a bunch of anti-Semitic warlords.seth plum said:Go round Africa, stop for refuelling or whatever in various parts of the African coast and boost their economy.
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.
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?0 -
It's the same few over and over again.ValleyGary said:
It borders on obsessive doesn’t it. Just can’t let go some people.Big_Bad_World said:Had a quick check to see if CL's worst fears have come true....yep, the HoC page has been fully locked down despite some glitches in the matrix having been exploited by forum rebels.
Said rebels have now found a part of the forum to wage their war on.
Sad really.6 -
That's just allowing ourselves to be bullied.seth plum said:
No it shouldn’t be ignored.Charlton and on said:
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.
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?1 -
I am sure Sunak and Biden have listened to you in great detail and discussed your alternative suggestion at great length.seth plum said:
No it shouldn’t be ignored.Charlton and on said:
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.
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?
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.1 -
It's like a cult. Said unwanted cult have now invaded a peaceful neighbour by force, because they can't help themselves. They HAVE to be heard, even if it means breaking rules/guidlines put in place by vey well meaning individuals to ensure the silent majority aren't subject to the posturing posse.ValleyGary said:
It borders on obsessive doesn’t it. Just can’t let go some people.Big_Bad_World said:Had a quick check to see if CL's worst fears have come true....yep, the HoC page has been fully locked down despite some glitches in the matrix having been exploited by forum rebels.
Said rebels have now found a part of the forum to wage their war on.7 -
Some absolute crackers on here so far, and no surprises.To believe that the government engineered the Falklands War to suit its electoral needs is tin hat flat earth territory.
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..9 -
I can see that point of view certainly.Charlton and on said:
That's just allowing ourselves to be bullied.seth plum said:
No it shouldn’t be ignored.Charlton and on said:
The Houthi's are using deadly force against commercial and military vessels. Should we just let that go?seth plum said:I don’t know if it is absolutely necessary to launch this war when it would take shipping an extra 11 days by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
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.
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?
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.Also Egypt and Saudi Arabia still have diplomatic channels to the powers behind the violent Houthi forces and behaviour.
I don’t believe there is only one way to tackle this problem, whatever stance Hawks want to take.2
This discussion has been closed.
