Peace Prize Update - Obama strikes Yemen

[oladub]

Reports are coming in that the US is now also attacking Al-queda in Yemen. Is this true? CNN hasn't mentioned this as far as I know although ABC has.

Cruise Missiles Hit Multiple Sites in Concert With Yemeni Govt
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/18/u...emen-after-all/

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise...ory?id=9375236

'US aided' deadly Yemen raids - 19 Dec 09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHyHWXEpFXw

Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

[Stosh]

Reports are coming in that the US is now also attacking Al-queda in Yemen. Is this true? CNN hasn't mentioned this as far as I know although ABC has.

Cruise Missiles Hit Multiple Sites in Concert With Yemeni Govt
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/18/u...emen-after-all/

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise...ory?id=9375236

'US aided' deadly Yemen raids - 19 Dec 09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHyHWXEpFXw

Quote: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

Last time I looked, cruise missles aren't troops.

[oladub]

Last time I looked, cruise missles aren't troops.

So true. I guess you wouldn't mind if a few cruise missiles landed in your hometown to get rid of some foreigners' idea of bad people. Collateral damage is a small price to pay, right?. The troop level went up from 36,000 to 100,000 in Afghanistan since President Obama took office though. Removing troops from Iraq didn't happen as promised either. Its getting harder to blame this all on Bush. Hope you are satisfied with change you can believe in.

[lilpup]

So true. I guess you wouldn't mind if a few cruise missiles landed in your hometown to get rid of some foreigners' idea of bad people.

"Cruise Missiles Hit Multiple Sites in Concert With Yemeni Govt"

did you miss that part??

[oladub]

"Cruise Missiles Hit Multiple Sites in Concert With Yemeni Govt"

did you miss that part??

No, I didn't miss that part and Obama isn't the first President to bomb countries in cooperation with their leaders. Pakistan, Iraq, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua come to mind as having, or having had, the same experience. Why didn't you just vote for McCain? At least you could have decried such actions if he did them instead of having to be an apologist for change.

[Stosh]

So true. I guess you wouldn't mind if a few cruise missiles landed in your hometown to get rid of some foreigners' idea of bad people. Collateral damage is a small price to pay, right?. The troop level went up from 36,000 to 100,000 in Afghanistan since President Obama took office though. Removing troops from Iraq didn't happen as promised either. Its getting harder to blame this all on Bush. Hope you are satisfied with change you can believe in.

What's your alternative? McCain? Lord...

You have to be kidding me.

[Stosh]

No, I didn't miss that part and Obama isn't the first President to bomb countries in cooperation with their leaders. Pakistan, Iraq, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua come to mind as having, or having had, the same experience. Why didn't you just vote for McCain? At least you could have decried such actions if he did them instead of having to be an apologist for change.

Lots of reasons. War wasn't high on my list. Mostly economic for me. And Sarah Palin too. Could NOT vote for that. Ever.

[lilpup]

No, I didn't miss that part and Obama isn't the first President to bomb countries in cooperation with their leaders. Pakistan, Iraq, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua come to mind as having, or having had, the same experience. Why didn't you just vote for McCain? At least you could have decried such actions if he did them instead of having to be an apologist for change.

I'm not an apologist at all. What I see is that, for a change, we have a moderate in the White House [[the first since Gerald Ford)!!

[oladub]

What's your alternative? McCain? Lord...

You have to be kidding me.

I voted for peace candidates instead of either Obama and McCain. My point was meant to be that, in this matter, the difference between Obama and McCain was that McCain said he would keep more troops in Iraq while Obama promised instead to bring the troops home as soon as he won office. Once in office, Obama performed like Bush and McCain. Now we are bombing Yemen.

lilput, I don't quite know what to call politicians who expand illegal wars and bailout Wall Street executives but my first choice wouldn't be 'moderates'.

[MoparDan]

"In an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism – and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction -- will require the cooperation of many nations. We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist. But we should know that our success in doing so is enhanced by engaging our allies so that we receive the crucial diplomatic, military, intelligence, and financial support that can lighten our load and add legitimacy to our actions. This means talking to our friends and, at times, even our enemies."
Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.net/barack-obama-quotes.html

Source: Yemen airstrike kills al Qaeda deputy
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...iref=allsearch

34 killed in Yemen terror raids
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...iref=allsearch

We're providing fire support while the Yemeni security forces do the actual ground fighting. I'm sure we have Special Forces/CIA advisors/Mercenaries in place though; most likely assisting with intelligence gathering. As a side note, the Navy is probably happy to play with some of their hardware.

[gazhekwe]

I thought the goal was to seek out and get rid of Al Qaeda wherever they may take root. To me this is an international police action, not a war. It is noxious either way, but what is the alternative? It looks wonderful that Yemen is cooperating and not letting Al Qaeda shelter there. If we could get Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same, we would be on the way to some peace.

[ccbatson]

Yes, a pleasant surprise that Obama has not [[yet) hamstrung our ability to fight this war with the enemy wherever they are found.

[lilpup]

I voted for peace candidates instead of either Obama and McCain. My point was meant to be that, in this matter, the difference between Obama and McCain was that McCain said he would keep more troops in Iraq while Obama promised instead to bring the troops home as soon as he won office. Once in office, Obama performed like Bush and McCain. Now we are bombing Yemen.

lilput, I don't quite know what to call politicians who expand illegal wars and bailout Wall Street executives but my first choice wouldn't be 'moderates'.

The view from the far left can be just as obscured as the view from the far right.

[ccbatson]

Peace in the face of attack and hostility IS NOT accomplished by complacence...only by strength is peace accomplished under those circumstances.

[oladub]

Aggression didn't work for Bush and won't work for Obama. These actions are like dousing fire with gasoline. Bombing Pakistani weddings, Somali asperin factories, or Yemenese houses might take out a few Al-queda but probably recruit even more.

""Why are we fighting and opposing you?" "The answer is very simple: Because you attacked and continue to attack us." "You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon." "Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries, which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis." "Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?" "We call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington."

"Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs." -Osama Bin-Laden 2002.

I'm not supporting Al-queda here but rather pointing out that what is going on in their heads is a sort of cause>effect>blowback argument. It would probably make more sense to tighten up our border security and discriminate against open immigration from certain countries than to lob bombs into another Arab country every couple of years.

[Meddle]

And Sarah Palin too. Could NOT vote for that. Ever.

Or Meg Whitman.

[gazhekwe]

Oladub, you may have a point, but what is the alternative. How would you deal with this problem?

We don't seem to deal very well with bullies. Playground bullies are like little mini-terrorists. Gangbangers and muggers are nasty neighborhood terrorists. Maybe some of these scary supremacists organizations are nationwide terrorists. Think the KKK in the 60s and before. If we can figure out how to deal with them in some way that prevents their spread and reigns of terror, we would really be on our way to heaven on earth.

What would you recommend?

[ccbatson]

Didn't work for Bush? Iraq, and the surge worked very well.

[oladub]

Didn't work for Bush? Iraq, and the surge worked very well.

If it worked so well, why do we still have just as many troops in Iraq? What happens when we stop paying cash to Shiites to stop shooting at us? Meanwhile Al-queda pops up in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and other places and the Afghan effort is failing. It sort of like a bop the mole game. If we drop a bomb on an Iraq mole. Three other moles pop up in three other countries.

gazhekwe asks: "Oladub, you may have a point, but what is the alternative. How would you deal with this problem?

We don't seem to deal very well with bullies. Playground bullies are like little mini-terrorists. Gangbangers and muggers are nasty neighborhood terrorists. Maybe some of these scary supremacists organizations are nationwide terrorists. Think the KKK in the 60s and before. If we can figure out how to deal with them in some way that prevents their spread and reigns of terror, we would really be on our way to heaven on earth.

What would you recommend?"

I already suggested listening to what enemies have to say and keeping them out of the country. I recently read former Soviet General Lebed's take on who he was fighting in Afghanistan. He broke down his enemies into about six different groups. Understanding their motives is essential to dealing with them. Listening can lead to breakthroughs. Lebed provided some insights.
A blunt Soviet view on fighting an Afghan war

During World War II, our quota of Japanese and German immigrants was pretty low. It was a self defense measure. If we are fighting radical Islam, it makes no sense to allow its participants into the country. Already, Somalis living in Minneapolis have been showing up more frequently in Al-queda training camps. it would be a good idea to cut some quotas until this blows over. It is suicidal to do otherwise. After 9/11, President Bush agreed with the Saudi Prince to allow an extra 15,000 Saudi students into the US to study. I once asked my local state university what percentage of its Saudi students were female and it claimed not to know. Anyway, it was mosly Saudis that performed 9/11 and it consequently made no sense for Bush to allow in huge numbers of Saudi students afer 9/11.

Domestically produced fuel is also necesssary to cut our ties with that part of the world. We have large amounts of recently discovered natural gas, coal, and anyone who has been to North Dakota knows its wind energy potential. To the extent that we produce our own fuel, we don't have to subsidize the mullahs and shieks. Meanwhile, it would probably be cheaper to pay their price than to be waging wars trying to control the oil flow. Europe should be expected to look after its own interests instead of relying on an almost free US umbrella.

We might also issue Letters of Marque to track down Bin Laden and other prominent Al-queda members. In a way, the initial occupation of Afghanistan was sort of a Letter of Marque allowing troops to go after Bin Laden for his 9/11 attack. The initial attack had limited goals and specific objectives just like a Letter of Marque.

[gazhekwe]

Well, keeping out the immigrants from those countries might make them mad, and the ones that are already here might get mad, too.

Isolationism is an interesting concept. Reduce trade with countries that are mad at us. Won't that make them mad?

See, mad people don't stop being mad. The more you ignore a bully, the more he hurts you.

[1KielsonDrive]

It's not a year, and we have a failed presidency already. Iraq? Afghanistan? Health Care Reform? DADT? Guantanamo? DOMA? Banking Reform? Foreclosures? As bad as Bush was, we knew we had a an idiot in the White House. Obama's a closet neo. We shouldda known when he hooked up with Rick Warren.

[oladub]

Well, keeping out the immigrants from those countries might make them mad, and the ones that are already here might get mad, too.

Isolationism is an interesting concept. Reduce trade with countries that are mad at us. Won't that make them mad?

See, mad people don't stop being mad. The more you ignore a bully, the more he hurts you.

Are Germans or the Japanese angry at us for temporarily reducing their visas and immigration to the US during WW II? I think contemporary Germans and Japanese understand that we took measures to protect ourselves. If the Saudis or Somalis are temporarily mad so what? It's better that they be mad over there than here. If the ones here don't like this place, they also have the option of leaving. I see what you mean though. They might react. Your point though about not submitting to bullies should also apply to such hypothetical reactionaries.

I did not suggest isolationism as much as I suggested energy independence. I even suggested paying their price for oil rather than persisting in gunboat diplomacy until establishing energy independence.

[Johnlodge]

Oladub, do you know this attack was a mistake? Or are you just pointing out that Obama is using the military. Not all war is unjustified. I would rather he reneg on some sort of campaign promise than not make strategically wise decisions, even if that means using the military. I'm no pacifist. I am against invading countries where none of your enemy exist, though. But Afghanistan? We were attacked from there. Yemen? A lot of terrorists, and a state that has a hard time dealing with them, though they do make an effort. Apparently they needed some help, and got it.

[gibran]

I think countries that work in a cohesive nature to hit terrorists is what we should have been doing all along..versus full scale wars...secondly we can't become isolationist when we a funding countries ..we can cut funding to countries that don't follow our policies and are not behaving in concert with international laws...or that ignore human rights, oppress minority ethnic cleanse or practice genocide. Think of what the billions we send blindly to countries like Israel and the likes would do for our economy..especially when they ignore our requests on settlement issues, or [[to be fair) Egypt for human rights ...evebn if they are our allies..but that would tak eour congress to act responsible...ummm and that is the problem when they are so heavily influenced by powerful others.

[ccbatson]

Foreign aid doesn't impart control over sovereignty and defense [[in the case of Israel). BTW, it is likely that Israel is going to save our butts regarding Iran...don't be so quick to demonize our best ally.