US Reduces Staff At The Yemen Embassy

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
It could bode very well for the so-called "War on Terror" if we would secure an alliance with Iran and the Shi'a world against Saudi-funded/sponsored/supported jihadist movements like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Iran and the United States are natural allies. Unfortunately, neocons like Obama and Hillary are utterly beholden to Israel.
The whole Ally premise when it comes to the middle east needs to go completely.

Our interest should only be about trade and dropping bombs when we are messed with.

Not nation building, or regime change or meddling on any level. Trade and self defense. That's it.
 

kendall69

macrumors regular
Sep 1, 2011
112
6
we created the freaking "terror"
Muslims have been TERRORIZING countries, people, other religions since 7th century C.E.

Now get out your calculator or excel file add 7th century C.E, and subtract ( your choice here ) 1492, or 1776 ( again please read why )

Now what's the ANSWER.......DING, DING, DING, DING, "WE" did not create terror, terror was brought to us.

Time for more reading.......1801–1805 Muslims attacked the USA by seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. Well, well, well, lookie here, WHO CREATED TERROR HERE...not the USA. Is it possible that you are a typical liberal PARROT Bawwwwwk, Bawwwwk, it's Bush's fault BAWWWWWk, the USA is bad BAWWWWWKKKKKK,

When you wake up and smell the coffee you will understand that Muslims want to rule the world. That has been their goal from it's inception and they will NEVER EVER give up that goal for the next 10,000 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,011
Criminal Mexi Midget
Muslims have been TERRORIZING countries, people, other religions since 7th century C.E.

Now get out your calculator or excel file add 7th century C.E, and subtract ( your choice here ) 1492, or 1776 ( again please read why )

Now what's the ANSWER.......DING, DING, DING, DING, "WE" did not create terror, terror was brought to us.

Time for more reading.......1801–1805 Muslims attacked the USA by seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. Well, well, well, lookie here, WHO CREATED TERROR HERE...not the USA. Is it possible that you are a typical liberal PARROT Bawwwwwk, Bawwwwk, it's Bush's fault BAWWWWWk, the USA is bad BAWWWWWKKKKKK,

When you wake up and smell the coffee you will understand that Muslims want to rule the world. That has been their goal from it's inception and they will NEVER EVER give up that goal for the next 10,000 years.
So funny. God forbid people have a different response from what faux news spills :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Time for more reading.......1801–1805 Muslims attacked the USA by seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms.
The Church of England did the same thing in that time period. (note it was actually not the church of England, but since apparently the religion of the people is more important to you than the country they were fighting for we can go with saying the Church of England did it.)
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
So funny. God forbid people have a different response from what faux news spills :rolleyes:
I don't any of his points relates anything called "faux noise", or whatever.

The Islamic world was trying to terrorize the USA from the very beginning of our history. The reasons have nothing to do with Israel, or Palestine or oil, or GWOT. They told us the reason then, but people don't accept it.

Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Nothing's changed.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Morocco, a Muslim country was also the first country to recognize the US as an independent country.

This was not some decision derived from respect for freedom. They wanted trade and port traffic.

Money talks after after a few decades of internal strife. By no means were down with the the American revolutionary cause, but they did want to get paid.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
Why does Yemen even have an embassy on the ground? All the diplomacy that we want over there can be achieved from 45,000ft with a fleet of Predators.
14 years after 9/11 and you are still fighting a war that cannot be won.

At this rate you will be handing this war over to your grandchildren.
 

mtneer

macrumors 68030
Sep 15, 2012
2,756
1,780
A predictably depressing example of a political perspective that is somewhat lacking in an awareness of nuance, depth, or of any knowledge of, or interest in, the wider political context of the region.

On the matter of reducing numbers of staff at the Embassy itself, I imagine that what happened in Benghazi has cast a long shadow for this administration, and that they are anxious to take whatever steps they deem necessary to prevent any sort of recurrence of such a situation, however unlikely this may actually be.
I beg to disagree. A nose in the sky, new-age faux-sophisticated approach to war is what has led us to never-resolving wars from Korea to Iraq/ Afghanistan. We ought to fight wars the way it was done for millennia; not to make friends along the way. We did not try to dissect the "good" Nazis from the "bad" Nazis when we firebombed and carpet bombed German cities. We didn't try to install a sham "Western educated" version of Tojo in Japan. We went in there and did what was needed to be done - to the enemy - enemy combatants as well as enemy civilians.

Ideologies are surprisingly malleable when the brain is being buffeted by concussion waves in multiple directions day in and day out. Once the entire population submits in abject unconditional surrender - then try to dissect the good and bad ones. Provide aid and support to the good ones to rebuild their country; and hang the bad ones after trial.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
We didn't try to install a sham "Western educated" version of Tojo in Japan. We went in there and did what was needed to be done - to the enemy - enemy combatants as well as enemy civilians.
That's fairly close to what we ended up doing to Japan. Which, by the way, was practically a textbook example of one of the few successful occupations in Western military history.

MacArthur all but whitewashed Emperor Hirohito's involvement in the war in order to better facilitate a smoother integration with the Japanese populace. We went in, stripped their military to the bone, gently introduced them to Western ideals, rebuilt their infrastructure, then left ASAP, only leaving behind a small contingent to ensure things continued on smoothly.

We didn't force them to conform at the point of a gun. Rather, we extended our hand in a peace offering. 70 years later, Japan is our closest Far Eastern ally, and a world power in its own right.
 

mtneer

macrumors 68030
Sep 15, 2012
2,756
1,780
That's fairly close to what we ended up doing to Japan. Which, by the way, was practically a textbook example of one of the few successful occupations in Western military history.

MacArthur all but whitewashed Emperor Hirohito's involvement in the war in order to better facilitate a smoother integration with the Japanese populace. We went in, stripped their military to the bone, gently introduced them to Western ideals, rebuilt their infrastructure, then left ASAP, only leaving behind a small contingent to ensure things continued on smoothly.

70 years later, Japan is our closest Far Eastern ally, and a world power in its own right.
Yes, but that was in 1945. Not in 1933, 39 or 41.
 

mtneer

macrumors 68030
Sep 15, 2012
2,756
1,780
True. We had to fight a war before we could get to that point. But that's the thing. We didn't take it to that nth degree, and go total war til the bitter end.
Fair enough.. We didn't take it to the nth degree for us. But for the denizens of the firebombed cities of Japan - and Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it pretty much was.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Fair enough.. We didn't take it to the nth degree for us. But for the denizens of the firebombed cities of Japan - and Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it pretty much was.
It was the end of probably the most violent episode in human history. Japan had never known defeat up until that point, so it was obviously going to take some brutal softening up to make them pliant. Firebombs, nuclear hellfire, the potential genocide of an entire nation, and the specter of Communism looming from the west did a pretty good job of getting them to that point.

But when we finally got in, we didn't move with the intent to punish them endlessly for their misdeeds or scour their resources. It's probably the one thing that made the occupation so successful.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
But when we finally got in, we didn't move with the intent to punish them endlessly for their misdeeds or scour their resources. It's probably the one thing that made the occupation so successful.
It is also worth keeping in mind that Japan had been a unified nation state; with one language; and a high degree of heterogeneity culturally, racially, religiously; and ethnically for at least two thousand years. Its people were by and large extremely law-abiding; with a highly developed sense of respect for the central Government. They were also highly educated; with a highly functional economic; political; and legal system.

None of those things were true of Afghanistan or Iraq in 2003. They are even less true today.

If you wanted to pick a textbook case of easy "nation building" you'd be hard pressed to find a more receptive place than Japan in 1945.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
The day Obama was sworn in.
It happened a lot earlier than that. While Obama has continued much of the bad policies that were started under Bush we had already lost and stooped down to the level of those we were fighting well before he first took office.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
14 years after 9/11 and you are still fighting a war that cannot be won.

At this rate you will be handing this war over to your grandchildren.
Much longer.

The failure's of Constantine XI and Guy of Lusignan prior feed into the Islamic problem we continue to experience globally centuries later.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
If you wanted to pick a textbook case of easy "nation building" you'd be hard pressed to find a more receptive place than Japan in 1945.
You do have a point. Japan is a country that values duty and conformity on a deep, cultural level. Once we had the Emperor on our side, the entire country fell in place rather quickly.

Though these facts don't do anything to devalue the idea of a quick, nonviolent occupation. If anything, they reinforce them. If we were to go storming in hell bent on making an example, and executed the Emperor for war crimes like many people though we should, the occupation would've ended up considerably different.
 

DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
Universe 0 Timeline
It happened a lot earlier than that. While Obama has continued much of the bad policies that were started under Bush we had already lost and stooped down to the level of those we were fighting well before he first took office.
What is your definition of "lost" in this context?

We'd just about won the war in Iraq, thanks to Bush's use of The Surge. That would have left us free to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
What is your definition of "lost" in this context?

We'd just about won the war in Iraq, thanks to Bush's use of The Surge. That would have left us free to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan.
But you wouldn't have had this mess at all, if you hadn't invaded back in 2003.:cool:
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
We'd just about won the war in Iraq ...
We won the war in Iraq. The Iraqi army was trounced and Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured and executed. Those are two ends that can be achieved through military engagement.

What do you think was left that would constitute "winning"? And how would those ends be achieved by soldiers?
 

luvmymbpr

macrumors regular
Mar 6, 2014
103
4
Because one occupies the White House and the other likely will.

I can't wait for Hillary. Someone should write a book called terrible, horrible, and absolutely the worst. It will be based on the years of Bush-Obama-Hillary.

----------

We won the war in Iraq. The Iraqi army was trounced and Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured and executed. Those are two ends that can be achieved through military engagement.

What do you think was left that would constitute "winning"? And how would those ends be achieved by soldiers?
We didn't win Iraq and we won't win Afghanistan.