We both clearly want the same thing though, but we foresee different outcomes. We want to bait the US into another war in our region because we have strong confidence it will be defeated. You though clearly forgot the lessons of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and need a refresher :)

[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In afganistan, about rougly 1900 US soldiers were killed, wereas about 60-70000 insurgents were killed.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Are there insurgents in Ukraine? It was the Afghani resistance to the US invasion.

Wars aren’t won by who kills the most civilians. Otherwise the US won in Vietnam. The US invaded Afghanistan, spent 20 years and 2.3 trillion dollars trying to prop up a puppet government that collapsed and the pre-invasion government retook Afghanistan.

Expect a similar outcome in Yemen.

[–] TheOSINTguy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Read about desert storm

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Learn about Yemen, or don't... It is interesting that you bring up Iraq given that the US lost in it too ultimately.

[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So the workers on the tankers getting shot at are considered enemy combatants? Because if not, then they’d be innocent people.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago

They're about as much enemy combatants as workers in military factories, and those have been fair game since forever.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Innocent people have nothing to hide and would respond to the requests of authorities. The ships were clearly headed to enemy ports, and intentionally ignored the requests to turn around.

Edit: The Red Sea and the Arabian Sea are under Yemeni authority. Non-enemy ships can pass, but for the enemy... Don't like it? You are free to sail around Africa

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're not suggesting a rules-based international order, are you?

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

No. Rules imply they are capricious and can change at whim. We have seen that in the US’s actions many times. What the world need are laws that no one can be above or allowed to veto.