Ramping up against the Houthis in Yemem

[Clayton Bigsby]

^ something something shores of Tripoli ^

[DirkDiggler]

  Glad the crew got out.  

[SocialD]

From a different OSINT site, someone captured the Truman Skippers reaction to this incident.  

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JA1ffd5Ms&t=10s&pp=2AEKkAIB

[raimius]

Seems like they are not having a good cruise.

[McJay Pilot]

[TreeA10]

Those things are becoming as disposable as the F-16!  What is the water equivalent of a Lawn Dart?

[Clayton Bigsby]

3 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

Literally thought of this when I read that news

[Pooter]

On 5/2/2025 at 6:40 PM, ClearedHot said:

"Baddie Brown people? " Just stop man...a completely useless comment. 

Question the strategy all you want...I think we all want to see something solid so we don;t get sucked into another rabbit hole but your comment was classless.

Jesus the things that go over you guys' heads sometimes. The entire point of saying "baddie brown people" is that is how the government views them: just the latest group of troublemaker muslims that we're going to dehumanize and bomb into oblivion.. because reasons.  So much so that in the signal chat operation Pete so generously shared with us, we leveled an entire apartment building to get one guy (show me where that is on the CDE tables.)

And is the irony lost on literally everyone that to debunk my claim we've been bombing the Houthis to no avail for years @GKinnear says: (paraphrasing) "actually Obama was bombing the dudes on the other side of the gang war."   ... and that makes it better how? If anything that proves the strategy is even more incoherent than we thought if we're bombing both sides of a gang war separated by only a few years.

Ultimately, I'm not here trying to claim the Houthis are model citizens of the world or that disrupting global shipping is okay. But I'm seeing a lot of the "rah rah rah LFG rah rah rah fuck with my boats and get ready to find out" energy that has gotten us into multiple previous middle east boondoggles, so I think it's valuable to have some pushback against that mentality to balance the conversation.  Especially when so far they seem to be fucking with our boats rather effectively.  I'm not sure why we seem so intent on parking our boats within "fuck with me" range, handing the Houthis and Iran massive PR wins with each hornet that goes into the drink. 

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Jesus the things that go over you guys' heads sometimes. The entire point of saying "baddie brown people" is that is how the government views them: just the latest group of troublemaker muslims that we're going to dehumanize and bomb into oblivion.. because reasons.  So much so that in the signal chat operation Pete so generously shared with us, we leveled an entire apartment building to get one guy (show me where that is on the CDE tables.)

I've NEVER heard the government say Muslims are viewed as "Baddie Brown People"...just the liberals on this forum.

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Jesus the things that go over you guys' heads sometimes. The entire point of saying "baddie brown people" is that is how the government views them: just the latest group of troublemaker muslims that we're going to dehumanize and bomb into oblivion.. because reasons.  So much so that in the signal chat operation Pete so generously shared with us, we leveled an entire apartment building to get one guy (show me where that is on the CDE tables.)

And is the irony lost on literally everyone that to debunk my claim we've been bombing the Houthis to no avail for years @GKinnear says: (paraphrasing) "actually Obama was bombing the dudes on the other side of the gang war."   ... and that makes it better how? If anything that proves the strategy is even more incoherent than we thought if we're bombing both sides of a gang war separated by only a few years.

Ultimately, I'm not here trying to claim the Houthis are model citizens of the world or that disrupting global shipping is okay. But I'm seeing a lot of the "rah rah rah LFG rah rah rah fuck with my boats and get ready to find out" energy that has gotten us into multiple previous middle east boondoggles, so I think it's valuable to have some pushback against that mentality to balance the conversation.  Especially when so far they seem to be fucking with our boats rather effectively.  I'm not sure why we seem so intent on parking our boats within "fuck with me" range, handing the Houthis and Iran massive PR wins with each hornet that goes into the drink. 

Well, the coherent thought is "you fuck with us and we'll fuck you up". 

AQAP was actively planning, inspiring, and executing external operations against Americans...we left the Houthis alone because they weren't bothering us.  In fact, Houthis and AQAP fighting each other, when it happened, was enjoyable to watch because that was less AQAP to worry about.

Since the Houthis are now attacking an ally (granted, a non-treaty one, but stated as a policy position for every president since 1947), taking civilian commercial ships hostage, and threatening the economic status of the world (again...BAM is a critical chokepoint and economic security is a part of national security)...yeah, the Houthis made themselves a valid target for American street justice.

In fact, you could argue they're a more valid target than Iraq in 1991 was...Houthis still aren't the recognized government in Yemen and they are a client state of Iran (state-sponsored terror and whatnot).

Again...this isn't rocket surgery.

Edited Wednesday at 10:33 PM by GKinnear
I compensate for not being a good speller by not knowing how to type

[Pooter]

lol and now we "negotiate" a cease fire between the US and the Houthis that doesn't include Israel.  YGBSM

https://allisrael.com/houthi-rebels-clarify-that-ceasefire-with-u-s-does-not-include-israel-will-continue-to-act-in-support-of-gaza

you guys are right, this isn't rocket surgery. It's just complete stupidity. We spent 1 billion https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-operation-houthis-cost-1-billion-rcna205333 striking the houthis, didn't dislodge them in any meaningful way, dumped 3 super hornets into the red sea, pulled back with our tail between our legs, and Israeli ships are still going to be shot at.

Maybe a 'real operator' can explain it to me but this looks almost as successful as our Afghanistan withdrawal

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

lol and now we "negotiate" a cease fire between the US and the Houthis that doesn't include Israel.  YGBSM

https://allisrael.com/houthi-rebels-clarify-that-ceasefire-with-u-s-does-not-include-israel-will-continue-to-act-in-support-of-gaza

you guys are right, this isn't rocket surgery. It's just complete stupidity. We spent 1 billion https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-operation-houthis-cost-1-billion-rcna205333 striking the houthis, didn't dislodge them in any meaningful way, dumped 3 super hornets into the red sea, pulled back with our tail between our legs, and Israeli ships are still going to be shot at.

Maybe a 'real operator' can explain it to me but this looks almost as successful as our Afghanistan withdrawal

And Biden spent $230M on his floating pier to Gaza that did jack and shit for the Israel - Hamas war...now you care about money spent?

https://www.reuters.com/world/bidens-gaza-pier-injured-far-more-troops-than-previously-known-2025-05-07/

I also see the Houthi statement has been unconfirmed by anyone in the administration...maybe it's true, maybe not.

If it true (big IF) then I'd argue the administration has chosen poorly and needs to restart the air campaign against the Houthis if they manage to land another missile in Israel.

I also don't believe if they keep shooting at ships, of any nation, that the current POTUS will just sit by and allow it to happen.  Again, fuck with us and we'll fuck you up.

"Tail between our legs"...sounds like you don't have a super accurate read on the current situation...I stand by my previous posts.

Edited Thursday at 09:30 PM by GKinnear

[Pooter]

58 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

And Biden spent $230M on his floating pier to Gaza that did jack and shit for the Israel - Hamas war...now you care about money spent?

https://www.reuters.com/world/bidens-gaza-pier-injured-far-more-troops-than-previously-known-2025-05-07/

Two things can be true at once.

Biden pier = really fucking dumb idea

This houthi debacle = also really fucking dumb idea

1 hour ago, GKinnear said:

I also see the Houthi statement has been unconfirmed by anyone in the administration...maybe it's true, maybe not.

😂 yeah you might be waiting for that confirmation a while..

Administration: "my fellow Americans, after talks with the houthis we can now confidently confirm our strategy was completely pointless and we are now back to square one."

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

 

Biden pier = really fucking dumb idea

 

Instead of playing a game of one-upmanship, I went back and re-read all your posts to make sure I didn't misconstruct anything.  Some points have merit...your original question was "what's different this time?" is valid for any operation, and in this one, to paraphrase other posts, it's difficult to bomb someone to the stone age when they're already there.

However, let me ask what you would do if you were the ultimate decider, to stop the Houthis from sending TBMs & OWA drones into an ally's territory, and were attacking innocent ships of all nations traveling through the BAM?

There are three basic options: do nothing, full-scale nuclear war, or something in between.

An oppositional attitude can be useful in the planning process...too many yes-men and there's no critical thought developing the plan.

You're obviously not a fan of the current COA, so what would you do differently?  I'm truly interested.

[bfargin]

Maybe the Clinton “strategy” of every six months sending a few tomahawks at a trouble maker. No American assets at real risk and lets the goat humpers know we’re still watching.

With the Houthis we could send a few at a time. I’m not sure what tomahawks are going for now, but def less expensive than F-18s. And putting Navy personnel in harms way, is no bueno.

[Pooter]

20 hours ago, GKinnear said:

Instead of playing a game of one-upmanship, I went back and re-read all your posts to make sure I didn't misconstruct anything.  Some points have merit...your original question was "what's different this time?" is valid for any operation, and in this one, to paraphrase other posts, it's difficult to bomb someone to the stone age when they're already there.

However, let me ask what you would do if you were the ultimate decider, to stop the Houthis from sending TBMs & OWA drones into an ally's territory, and were attacking innocent ships of all nations traveling through the BAM?

There are three basic options: do nothing, full-scale nuclear war, or something in between.

An oppositional attitude can be useful in the planning process...too many yes-men and there's no critical thought developing the plan.

You're obviously not a fan of the current COA, so what would you do differently?  I'm truly interested.

I would exert political pressure on that ally (Israel) to knock it off in Gaza. They have more than retaliated for Oct 7 and gone orders of magnitude past that. The stated position of the houthis is that they are attacking Israeli ships "in support of their muslim brethren in gaza." Which I actually believe because so far the only time the houthis have stopped shooting was during the short lived Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire.  I would immediately stop any talks of a Gaza riviera developed by us and Israel. The gaza riviera is a bad idea of biblical proportions that will have Israel cemented as a permanent pariah state, with us as the enablers. 

Of course all of this assumes im king for a day and not completely beholden to AIPAC like the current admin and most of the left are.

edit: The other biggest problem with the gaza riviera plan is that it's the stumbling block preventing any meaningful negotiations from happening to get back the remaining hostages. Think about it from the perspective of hamas. Once you give up the hostages you've given up your last card, then israel is free to completely bulldoze the place. So what incentive do you have to negotiate a cease fire and return hostages if the only thing looming on the horizon afterward is complete displacement?

Edited 20 hours ago by Pooter

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

The gaza riviera is a bad idea of biblical proportions that will have Israel cemented as a permanent pariah state, with us as the enablers. 

[TreeA10]

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

I would exert political pressure on that ally (Israel) to knock it off in Gaza. They have more than retaliated for Oct 7 and gone orders of magnitude past that. The stated position of the houthis is that they are attacking Israeli ships "in support of their muslim brethren in gaza." Which I actually believe because so far the only time the houthis have stopped shooting was during the short lived Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire.  I would immediately stop any talks of a Gaza riviera developed by us and Israel. The gaza riviera is a bad idea of biblical proportions that will have Israel cemented as a permanent pariah state, with us as the enablers. 

Of course all of this assumes im king for a day and not completely beholden to AIPAC like the current admin and most of the left are.

edit: The other biggest problem with the gaza riviera plan is that it's the stumbling block preventing any meaningful negotiations from happening to get back the remaining hostages. Think about it from the perspective of hamas. Once you give up the hostages you've given up your last card, then israel is free to completely bulldoze the place. So what incentive do you have to negotiate a cease fire and return hostages if the only thing looming on the horizon afterward is complete displacement?

If your neighbor had a pack of vicious dogs that attacked and butchered your child, would you be satisfied that killing a couple of the dogs would prevent your other children from being attacked from the remaining pack of dogs or would want to completely eliminate the threat?

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

If your neighbor had a pack of vicious dogs that attacked and butchered your child, would you be satisfied that killing a couple of the dogs would prevent your other children from being attacked from the remaining pack of dogs or would want to completely eliminate the threat?

 

 

Not to mention the dogs have been killing your family members for *decades*

 

It's such a delusional way of looking at the world. I don't get it.

[GKinnear]

15 hours ago, Pooter said:

I would exert political pressure on that ally (Israel) to knock it off in Gaza. They have more than retaliated for Oct 7 and gone orders of magnitude past that. The stated position of the houthis is that they are attacking Israeli ships "in support of their muslim brethren in gaza." Which I actually believe because so far the only time the houthis have stopped shooting was during the short lived Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire.  I would immediately stop any talks of a Gaza riviera developed by us and Israel. The gaza riviera is a bad idea of biblical proportions that will have Israel cemented as a permanent pariah state, with us as the enablers. 

Of course all of this assumes im king for a day and not completely beholden to AIPAC like the current admin and most of the left are.

edit: The other biggest problem with the gaza riviera plan is that it's the stumbling block preventing any meaningful negotiations from happening to get back the remaining hostages. Think about it from the perspective of hamas. Once you give up the hostages you've given up your last card, then israel is free to completely bulldoze the place. So what incentive do you have to negotiate a cease fire and return hostages if the only thing looming on the horizon afterward is complete displacement?

Thanks for the reply...some we can agree on, some I see the logic of your decision-making, but I disagree with the assumption it's based on.

@TreeA10 and @Lord Ratner speak to the assumption part...HAMAS has had semi-independence for 20 years and never pursued a peaceful co-existence with Israel, and the world basically encouraged them not to.  See multiple examples of the UN and AP journalists dual-hatted as HAMAS operatives.

Also, HAMAS specifically targeted soft civilian targets.  The killing would have been bad enough, but the torture, mutilation, kidnapping, and raping (regardless of age) puts it on another level.  I pray for peace in the middle east, but it takes both sides to be honest participants, and HAMAS has never proven themselves to be anything other than what the world saw on Oct 7th.  

So your plan to get the Houthis to stop is dependent on Israel, which is dependent on HAMAS...like I said, makes sense from your POV, we just disagree about the nature of HAMAS.

I celebrate your right to free speech under the 1st Amendment, but your AIPAC comment made me pause.  Jews can be criticised, just as blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Polish, etc, can; however, there are many anti-semetic conspiracy theories about global Jewish cabals running the world that seem to have echoes in your statement.  I may have some bias since we've been on opposite ends of this conversation.

To end on a positive note, I agree with you and @Day Man on the Gaza Riveria plan.  US Government has no standing to get directly involved in post-war plans in any way, and I don't think there's a public outcry to justify a change.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, GKinnear said:

To end on a positive note, I agree with you and @Day Man on the Gaza Riveria plan.  US Government has no standing to get directly involved in post-war plans in any way, and I don't think there's a public outcry to justify a change.

The validity of the Gaza Riviera plan is this: 

 

There is *no* solution where 2 million+ Palestinians are living in Gaza, and Israel remains as a Jewish state. Period. History does not equivocate on this.

 

The only solution is the same solution that humanity has turned to forever: migration. The Palestinians must be moved somewhere else. Either incorporated into a collection of existing Muslim nations or, more likely, moved to a new territory that borders more than a single nation of people the Palestinians believe God wants them to murder. 

 

Any other suggestions of a two-state solution with the current geographic reality are either ignorant or disingenuous. 

 

No one thought a country as developed and Western as Germany would systematically round up and slaughter millions of Jews and other Europeans in the Holocaust. People will be equally shocked by what happens in Israel or Palestine the next time a global conflict keeps the attention of the rest of the world focused on their own problems. 

[GKinnear]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Any other suggestions of a two-state solution with the current geographic reality are either ignorant or disingenuous. 

 

Violent agreement...I think it should be inside the borders of Israel.  

I just don't see the compelling need for US governmental involvement.  Private US business concerns can invest if they want to, but I'm very hesitant on US government at any level.

[uhhello]

22 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

Violent agreement...I think it should be inside the borders of Israel.  

I just don't see the compelling need for US governmental involvement.  Private US business concerns can invest if they want to, but I'm very hesitant on US government at any level.

452nd time has got to be successful right?  

[Lord Ratner]

6 minutes ago, uhhello said:

452nd time has got to be successful right?  

We might be advocating for different things... I'm suggesting (and I think Gkinnear agrees) that the only real solution is the forced relocation of the Palestinians out of Gaza (or I suppose the slaughter of all Israeli Jews). At which point Israel can do whatever they want with it. 

 

 

 

To my knowledge this has not been tried yet.