7 ms·

Because there's a civil war in that country, indirectly supported by the US through its Saudi Arabia proxy. It's a nasty, dirty conflict full of human rights vi

Because there's a civil war in that country, indirectly supported by the US through its Saudi Arabia proxy. It's a nasty, dirty conflict full of human rights violations, and reporting on it would bring to the public's attention many occasions in which the US and its proxy weren't exactly being paragons of virtue. So it's just not reported on instead.

mlindner 5y ago
It's disingenuous to say it is supported by the US. If the US is "supporting it", so is France, UK, Italy, and Spain.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Yes, and?
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages. In addition he armed the Saudi and other proxies with weapons to wreak havoc and genocide in Yemen. The Yemen story is like Obama’s grim reaper legacy in Libya (he even help create slave markets there), Sudan, Somalia, Africa and elsewhere. The overthrow of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh by Obama which was the first step to destroy Yemen: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen....
  - ur-whale 5y ago
    > Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages. We're talking the same Obama who got a Nobel peace prize, right?
    - 1cvmask 5y ago
      The same Nobel peace prize that Kissinger got: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger The same Kissinger that the Clintons embraced: https://www.vox.com/world/2016/2/12/10979304/clinton-sanders-kissinger https://www.vox.com/world/2016/2/12/10979304/clinton-sanders... Kissinger continued to violate the signed truce after being awarded the Nobel. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1973/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1973/summary/
    - Omnitaus 5y ago
      Obama has the distinction of being the only Nobel peace prize recipient to authorize bombing another recipient [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-peace-prize-what-barack-obama-s-role-kunduz-bombing-means-world-s-most-conflicted-prize-a6689126.html?amp https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-p...
      - 1cvmask 5y ago
        This part is great from the article: Obama is commander-in-chief of the US military and therefore ultimately responsible for the AC-130 gunship that repeatedly bombed and strafed a field hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, a week ago. Weirdly, the aircraft was almost certainly using a 40mm cannon made by Bofors, a company that was once owned by Alfred Nobel, the founder of the peace prize. Two dozen people were killed, including three children. Among the adults were the staff and patients of the charity that runs the hospital, Médecins Sans Frontières. Doctors Without Borders, as it is also known, was given the Nobel in 1999 for its “pioneering humanitarian work on several continents”. So a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President is being condemned for sending a gunship to kill the staff of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning charity using weapons made by the company that the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize used to own.
  - reissbaker 5y ago
    It seems a bit disingenuous to claim Obama overthrew Saleh. The Obama administration originally supported Saleh, until massive protests made that support untenable — at which point they withdrew support. That's not exactly an Obama-initiated coup.
- gtirloni 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - voxl 5y ago
    This is not whataboutism, because the author is arguing that we wouldn't say France is supporting it. And if you agree, then it doesn't make sense to treat the U.S. differently. Whataboutism would instead say something like: Well France is supporting it too, why are you focusing so much on the U.S.?
    - gtirloni 5y ago
      That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
- Jenk 5y ago
  I can't speak for France, Italy, and Spain, but the UK certainly are supporting it. A lot of the munitions dropped by Saudi Arabia on Yemen are of British origin. We also have some odd policies regarding SA - the recent transfer of ownership of the UK Football (Soccer) club Newcastle United is shrouded in mystery because the UK government granted special secrecy to the incoming Saudi owners. No, this is not fiction. There's a whole history of unpopular decisions regarding SA, and the wider UAE in general, in the UK. Many times trade (notably arms) sanctions have been called for and routinely ignored. E.g. when the tragic living and working (read: slave) conditions of much of the immigrant workforces were revealed.
- agent327 5y ago
  I wasn't implying it was a complete list; if it were, presumably at least Iran needs a place on it too. However, the question was why we hadn't heard about it. The answer is because it is a shameful conflict that doesn't make the US look good in any kind of way, so it is just ignored by US media.
yodelshady 5y ago
Seems ironic, as this is a situation where I'd deem the US military a force for good. The non-explodey solution is most likely going to require *both* sending enough money to Houthi leadership to save face, plus turning up with enough muscle to ensure an agreement to remove the oil is honoured.
- 1_player 5y ago
  > US military a force for good The US military has never been a force for good, nor a force for evil either. The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. The rest is propaganda. History has put the US in such a position this propaganda, and the area of control of its military, is extremely widespread.
  - yodelshady 5y ago
    > The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. Of course, and for everyone but contrarians, sometimes the US has goals that are a net good. Sometimes the US doesn't, and sometimes the US uses the military inappropriately for commendable but open-ended goals. This isn't open-ended, and not having the tanker is a net good, and you'll notice I emphatically did not suggest using only the US military. I suggested the US military provide security for whatever deal is struck. Assuming we're living in reality, what non-force-backed solution do you propose that doesn't end with "Thankyou for $ASSET. There has been problem. Send more $ASSET."... Forever?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kmlx 5y ago
isn’t it a proxy fight between the islamist houthis, supported by iran and north korea, and the saudis, supported by the west?

mlindner 5y ago

It's disingenuous to say it is supported by the US. If the US is "supporting it", so is France, UK, Italy, and Spain.

pjc50 5y ago
Yes, and?
1cvmask 5y ago
Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages. In addition he armed the Saudi and other proxies with weapons to wreak havoc and genocide in Yemen. The Yemen story is like Obama’s grim reaper legacy in Libya (he even help create slave markets there), Sudan, Somalia, Africa and elsewhere. The overthrow of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh by Obama which was the first step to destroy Yemen: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen....
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages. We're talking the same Obama who got a Nobel peace prize, right?
  - 1cvmask 5y ago
    The same Nobel peace prize that Kissinger got: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger The same Kissinger that the Clintons embraced: https://www.vox.com/world/2016/2/12/10979304/clinton-sanders-kissinger https://www.vox.com/world/2016/2/12/10979304/clinton-sanders... Kissinger continued to violate the signed truce after being awarded the Nobel. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1973/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1973/summary/
  - Omnitaus 5y ago
    Obama has the distinction of being the only Nobel peace prize recipient to authorize bombing another recipient [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-peace-prize-what-barack-obama-s-role-kunduz-bombing-means-world-s-most-conflicted-prize-a6689126.html?amp https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-p...
    - 1cvmask 5y ago
      This part is great from the article: Obama is commander-in-chief of the US military and therefore ultimately responsible for the AC-130 gunship that repeatedly bombed and strafed a field hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, a week ago. Weirdly, the aircraft was almost certainly using a 40mm cannon made by Bofors, a company that was once owned by Alfred Nobel, the founder of the peace prize. Two dozen people were killed, including three children. Among the adults were the staff and patients of the charity that runs the hospital, Médecins Sans Frontières. Doctors Without Borders, as it is also known, was given the Nobel in 1999 for its “pioneering humanitarian work on several continents”. So a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President is being condemned for sending a gunship to kill the staff of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning charity using weapons made by the company that the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize used to own.
- reissbaker 5y ago
  It seems a bit disingenuous to claim Obama overthrew Saleh. The Obama administration originally supported Saleh, until massive protests made that support untenable — at which point they withdrew support. That's not exactly an Obama-initiated coup.
gtirloni 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- voxl 5y ago
  This is not whataboutism, because the author is arguing that we wouldn't say France is supporting it. And if you agree, then it doesn't make sense to treat the U.S. differently. Whataboutism would instead say something like: Well France is supporting it too, why are you focusing so much on the U.S.?
  - gtirloni 5y ago
    That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
Jenk 5y ago
I can't speak for France, Italy, and Spain, but the UK certainly are supporting it. A lot of the munitions dropped by Saudi Arabia on Yemen are of British origin. We also have some odd policies regarding SA - the recent transfer of ownership of the UK Football (Soccer) club Newcastle United is shrouded in mystery because the UK government granted special secrecy to the incoming Saudi owners. No, this is not fiction. There's a whole history of unpopular decisions regarding SA, and the wider UAE in general, in the UK. Many times trade (notably arms) sanctions have been called for and routinely ignored. E.g. when the tragic living and working (read: slave) conditions of much of the immigrant workforces were revealed.
agent327 5y ago
I wasn't implying it was a complete list; if it were, presumably at least Iran needs a place on it too. However, the question was why we hadn't heard about it. The answer is because it is a shameful conflict that doesn't make the US look good in any kind of way, so it is just ignored by US media.

yodelshady 5y ago

Seems ironic, as this is a situation where I'd deem the US military a force for good. The non-explodey solution is most likely going to require *both* sending enough money to Houthi leadership to save face, plus turning up with enough muscle to ensure an agreement to remove the oil is honoured.

1_player 5y ago
> US military a force for good The US military has never been a force for good, nor a force for evil either. The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. The rest is propaganda. History has put the US in such a position this propaganda, and the area of control of its military, is extremely widespread.
- yodelshady 5y ago
  > The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. Of course, and for everyone but contrarians, sometimes the US has goals that are a net good. Sometimes the US doesn't, and sometimes the US uses the military inappropriately for commendable but open-ended goals. This isn't open-ended, and not having the tanker is a net good, and you'll notice I emphatically did not suggest using only the US military. I suggested the US military provide security for whatever deal is struck. Assuming we're living in reality, what non-force-backed solution do you propose that doesn't end with "Thankyou for $ASSET. There has been problem. Send more $ASSET."... Forever?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kmlx 5y ago

isn’t it a proxy fight between the islamist houthis, supported by iran and north korea, and the saudis, supported by the west?