What the Hell Are We Doing in Yemen?

 

It’s easy to forget the ongoing war in Yemen. But a pair of news stories this week serves not only of a reminder of American involvement there but the foolishness in involving ourselves in yet another civil war.

The first story is the bombing of a school bus by Saudi warplanes that killed 29 children under the age of 15 in Saada Province. For what it’s worth (which isn’t much), the Saudis claim they didn’t intentionally target a bus full of children and that this was a “legitimate military operation.” Civil wars are usually full of atrocities, but this particular horror and the 29 dead children (and many others in this war) was made possible by generous assistance from the United States government and American taxpayers.

Yes, these were Saudi pilots flying Saudi planes (probably — this particular atrocity is credited to the “Saudi-led coalition”), but those planes and the bombs they dropped were sold to them by the United States. Now, you can argue that a seller has no moral responsibility for the atrocities committed when they provide weapons to a bestial regime. So be it, but American involvement doesn’t end when the check is cashed.

Not only does America provide the warplanes, but we provide the Saudi government targeting information and aerial refueling. The Saudis would not be able to fight their air war in Yemen without the support of the American government. And it’s long been communicated to the Saudis that they can bomb civilians and still receive that absolutely essential logistical support. Why? The Saudis are aligned with the “government” of Yemen against the Houthi rebels, which are nominally supported by Iran. The Yemen Civil War is a proxy war of sorts between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

By backing the Saudis to blow up school buses full of children, the US is able to poke a finger in the eye of Iran … or something. (It’s worth noting that the amount of support by the Iranians to the Houthis is a subject of much debate. It appears to me to be wildly overblown.) And we have to fight Iran, don’t ya know, because they support international terrorist groups … or something.

The second story was less widely reported: The Associated Press found that for the last two years the “Saudi-led coalition” has been winning battles on the ground in Yemen by making common cause with Al Qaeda, specifically the local branch, AQAP. They’ve made secret deals, letting them go free if they leave certain cities and towns. It’s a good deal for the AQAP fighters because they usually get to walk away with their guns, their gear, and the cash they looted.

How could our dear allies, the Saudis, betray America like this? Oh, Uncle Sam knows what’s going on and we’ve canceled airstrikes on certain AQAP forces after they’ve cut deals with the Saudis. The US not droning AQAP forces when they retreat with their weapons is a central requirement for these agreements to happen.

Look, I can make a case for negotiating with horrific groups. There’s academic research on how civil wars conclude and it often involves bringing parties (even horrifically violent ones) into the political process. The above is also obviously an oversimplification of the situation. For example, I haven’t even mentioned ISIS or Al-Islah. By my count, there are at least five different warring factions in Yemen (not counting the Saudi-led coalition, Iran, the Emiratis, or the US).

Lines in civil wars are both blurry and constantly shifting, and we’re talking about a part of the world where they were playing power politics 2,000 years before Christ was born. A country as young as America cannot hope to compete with the internal dynamics of a five-way civil war in a country most Americans probably still can’t find on a map.

The real folly, of course, was getting involved in someone else’s civil war in the first place. Whatever case was to be made is weaker than it ever was. But you have to wonder what we’re doing if we’re cutting deals with Al Qaeda while our “allies” bomb school buses full of children.

Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism, Military
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 140 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Fred,

    This has been going on for quite some time. Now that you have some really great emotional photos to show us you make your pitch which is as usual just to retreat from everything. First, it’s just a story from a Houthi television station. We’ve never seen Islamic insurgencies make false reports?! Anyway, let’s assume that everything you say in your post is true. Obviously, nothing can be done by negotiating between groups on the ground.

    However, there is a solution. It is very simple. Iran withdraws support for the Houthis. The Saudi backed group wins and the killing, including the killing of children, comes to an end. I think the Iranian people aren’t the slightest bit interested in a Shite proxy war in Yemen. They are concerned about the price of food in Iran and the fact that they haven’t had a paycheck in over a year. I think we keep the pressure up and we and the Iranian people will be rid of the Mullahs and the Saudi’s will be rid of the Houthis.

    Win-win.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Hold Iran accountable for its part? Interesting idea.

    • #61
  2. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I don’t want to import that culture, and right now, America is doing a poor job of acculteration of immigrants. 

    America has always imported other cultures.  We take the best of every culture on Earth and make it our own.

    And contrary to what the nativists tell themselves, America is really good at acculturating immigrants. 

    • #62
  3. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    It’s currently run by craven (and, yes, often racist) nativists whose antipathy towards dirty foreigners from “[expletive] hole countries” leads them to cower in fear from women and children.

    WHOOP DEY IT IS!

    • #63
  4. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Spin (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Now, you can argue that a seller has no moral responsibility for the atrocities committed when they provide weapons to a bestial regime. So be it, but American involvement doesn’t end when the check is cashed.

    Point of clarification:

    Do you believe the underlined above, or are you saying that you understand people making that argument, but you, yourself do not agree with it?

    I’m not sure. I’d have to spend some time thinking about it. That also feels like it should be a separate post.

    It is simple. If you come to my gun store to buy a gun, and you say “I’m gonna kill my ex-wife”, and I sell you the gun, I’m complicit. If I have reason to think you are buying the gun to commit murder, I am complicit. If I know nothing of you, and sell you the gun, and you kill you ex-wife, then I am not complicit.

    I’m not smart enough about Saudi Arabia to know, but it seems to me that someone is, and should know that we oughten’t be selling them anything.

    Yeah, there are some issues with Saudi Arabia but they have been an allied country since World War II, they helped us in the first Gulf War. We have under multiple administrations approved that sale of arms to the kingdom. The support listed above (arms sales and refueling) are also provided by the United Kingdom. Also of note Saudi Arabia is leading a multinational force, they have allies working with them in this fight. 

    It would seem that an awful lot of smart people for years in both the US and UK thought this was a good idea to help Saudi Arabia.  Several other countries felt that Saudi Arabia was a good enough actor to fight by their side. My belief is that this was an accident. Bad things sometimes happen in War. 

    It does not seem that we and/or Saudia Arabia are arming Al-Queda, we are just allowing them to survive to continue to attack the same opponents were are attacking. I don’t like it but this seems like more of small scale tactical choice, then any sort of Al-queda are now the good guys type of thing. 

     

    • #64
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Now, you can argue that a seller has no moral responsibility for the atrocities committed when they provide weapons to a bestial regime. So be it, but American involvement doesn’t end when the check is cashed.

    Point of clarification:

    Do you believe the underlined above, or are you saying that you understand people making that argument, but you, yourself do not agree with it?

    I’m not sure. I’d have to spend some time thinking about it. That also feels like it should be a separate post.

    Are you [redacted] kidding me?  That was *your words* in the original post!

    • #65
  6. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Okay, Jim, let me take this apart a piece at a time, because there’s a lot to correct here.

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    This has been going on for quite some time. Now that you have some really great emotional photos to show us

    I’m gonna stop you right there.  I didn’t choose the photo at the top.  After an editor inserted it, I lobbied an editor to use a different photo.  He declined (and he was probably right to do so) because it would have been a little too much.

    you make your pitch which is as usual just to retreat from everything.

    Incorrect.

    I’m not an isolationist.  Isolationism has two part: non-interventionism and protectionism.  I am most certainly not a protectionist.  I favor free trade, free travel, and easy immigration.  

    By the way, I could make the case that the current administration, with it’s anti-trade, anti-travel, anti-immigration, anti-foreign alliance policies is the one interested in a “retreat from everything.”

    First, it’s just a story from a Houthi television station. We’ve never seen Islamic insurgencies make false reports?! Anyway, let’s assume that everything you say in your post is true.

    I’m using the more widely quoted figure of 29 dead.  Houthi television is quoting higher figures.

    Obviously, nothing can be done by negotiating between groups on the ground.

    That is utterly untrue.  Civil wars aren’t usually concluded by force of arms.  

    However, there is a solution. It is very simple. Iran withdraws support for the Houthis. The Saudi backed group wins and the killing, including the killing of children, comes to an end.

    Civil wars, left alone, tend to burn out after a few years.  People get tired of fighting and resources run out.  The exception to that is if outside countries get involved and support one side or the other.  That’s why the number of civil wars in the world dropped dramatically at the end of the Cold War.  The US and USSR stopped fueling civil wars.  Here’s a chart:

    The number of civil wars increase during the Cold War and then drop off a cliff in the early 1990s.

    The Iranians aren’t going to stop their nominal support of the Houthis.  The Saudis aren’t going to stop as long as we’re supporting them.  The United States gains nothing and loses a lot by supporting the Saudis.  American involvement only makes things worse.

    I think the Iranian people aren’t the slightest bit interested in a Shiite proxy war in Yemen.

    The Saudi people are probably equally uninterested.

    They are concerned about the price of food in Iran and the fact that they haven’t had a paycheck in over a year. I think we keep the pressure up and we and the Iranian people will be rid of the Mullahs and the Saudi’s will be rid of the Houthis.

    Right.  I’m less worried about “the Mullahs” than I am about the Saudis.  Iran is (nominally) a republic.  Saudi Arabia is a brutal autocracy and wholly unworthy of American support.

     

    • #66
  7. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Jager (View Comment):
    Yeah, there are some issues with Saudi Arabia but they have been an allied country since World War II, they helped us in the first Gulf War.

    Two things here:

    1. Iran was also an American ally in WW2.
    2. They didn’t help us in the first Gulf War.  We helped them.

     

    • #67
  8. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    The Iranians aren’t going to stop their nominal support of the Houthis.

    When the Mullahs are gone so will support for the Houthis be gone. Concentrate on the one and you get a twofer. Actually, we’ve needed to let the Mullahs fall for a very long time anyway. However, I’m glad you’ve given me one more very good reason to put them right behind the eight ball. It couldn’t happen to a more sadistic band of tyrants.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #68
  9. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    That sounds like it should be a separate post, so as not to derail this one.

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    I’m not sure. I’d have to spend some time thinking about it. That also feels like it should be a separate post.

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    You clearly don’t understand correctly: Make this into a separate post, please.

    Fred,

    It’s a conversation.  It can go where it goes.

     

    • #69
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I don’t want to import that culture, and right now, America is doing a poor job of acculteration of immigrants.

    America has always imported other cultures. We take the best of every culture on Earth and make it our own.

    And contrary to what the nativists tell themselves, America is really good at acculturating immigrants.

    I do not think we are as good as we used to be:

    • #70
  11. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    Yeah, there are some issues with Saudi Arabia but they have been an allied country since World War II, they helped us in the first Gulf War.

    Two things here:

    1. Iran was also an American ally in WW2.
    2. They didn’t help us in the first Gulf War. We helped them.

    On point 2. Yes we were their to help the Saudis and Kwuiat. They needed us. They were not entirely passive in this matter. The Saudi’s allowed us to/helped us build temporary and permanent military bases in their country. They helped with logistics and there forces trained and worked beside ours. It was not a generous effort on their part, but shows that our forces had worked together in the past.

    Point 1 is a little more complicated that this. First I stated the Saudis had been our allies since WWII not just during the war. Iran was not originally helpful to the Allies. British and Russian forces invaded Iran, the leader stepped down and the new leader was friendly to the Allies. In the 50s the US supported a coup to remove a more communist leaning leader in Iran. Iran was friendly with us until the Revolution, and not since. This includes our support of Iraq when Iraq invaded Iran.  Iran has not been our friend, more or less continuously, since the 40s. They have been our friend sporadically and not at all since 1980.

    • #71
  12. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I don’t want to import that culture, and right now, America is doing a poor job of acculteration of immigrants.

    America has always imported other cultures. We take the best of every culture on Earth and make it our own.

    And contrary to what the nativists tell themselves, America is really good at acculturating immigrants.

    I do not think we are as good as we used to be:

    La Raza … gringos.

    • #72
  13. Hank Rhody, Probably Mad Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad
    @HankRhody

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):
    3.8B barrels of oil pass through those straits on a daily basis whether you find it “plausible” or not. It is the main alternate route other than Hormuz. (17.0BBD) Once the Iranians control the back door it makes the front door more vulnerable.

    Okay, let’s break this down this master plan.

    In order for this to work, the Iranians need to support the Houthis and have them win a five-way civil war. And their way of going about this is not with Iranian troops or aircraft, but by supplying the Houthis arms and equipment.

    In order to win this war, the Houthis need to defeat four other opponents plus the Saudi government, which has a huge air force and a fully mechanized army of 75,000 men that they could drive across their land border into Yemen…

    And winning that five-way civil war is just Step 1 to accomplish this master plan, with the ultimate aim of closing the Strait of Hormuz, and interrupting the world’s trade in oil. (What comes after that remains unexplained.)

    Does that seem plausible to you?

    C’mon.

    Let me present a more … realistic view. Nominally supporting the Houthis is a way for the Iranians to pour gasoline on a civil war in a country that shares 1,300-mile land border with their largest regional rival, with the end of sucking that hated rival in to the conflict.

    And it’s worked. The Saudis are expending blood and treasure with minimal cost to the Iranians. And at the same time, they look like major regional players because the Saudis and the US wildly exaggerate their involvement.

    Embrace the power of “And”.

    Iran supplies the Houthis. If the Houthis win Iran gets to control another oil choke point. If the Houthis can’t win, the support drags the war out. Makes trouble for Saudi Arabia. I’ll add a third reason; as long as there’s a five way civil war in Yemen no one else gets to step up and control the choke point, which redounds to Iran’s benefit, because they already get to be jerks in the Straits of Hormuz.

    Who says they need to be doing a thing for only one reason?

    • #73
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):
    Who says they need to be doing a thing for only one reason?

    Almost no human behavior is done for only one reason.

    • #74
  15. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    We’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here. The real question is why aren’t we in Iran?

    • #75
  16. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):
    Who says they need to be doing a thing for only one reason?

    Almost no human behavior is done for only one reason.

    All human (at least Male human) behavior ultimately comes down to just one reason – chicks.

    • #76
  17. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Stuff happens. You should read about some of the stuff we did in WWII some time.

    Oh, I’m well aware.

    Not to excuse it, but we didn’t have precision guided munitions during WW2. You had to send 50 bombers to hit one bridge.

    And a thousand bombers with incendiaries to incinerate a city.   But that’s what it took.  Precision guided munitions are only as good as the targeting.  When your enemy loves doing things like using Mosques, schools and hospitals as shields, stuff happens.

    • #77
  18. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Spin (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Now, Fred, the other question I asked was about who should pay for refugees.

    Just to signal my virtue: I would “sponsor” a refugee family if that were an option.

    Here ya go.

    Rooms for Refugees

     

    • #78
  19. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Kozak (View Comment):
    And a thousand bombers with incendiaries to incinerate a city. But that’s what it took.

    We killed more people in the firebombing of Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

    • #79
  20. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    So, Fred, who should pay for the increased number of refugees that you think we should bring into America?

    The barrier isn’t paying for them, as if a country with a $18 trillion dollar economy, where poor people are fat, couldn’t pay for refugees.

    The barrier is the government allowing them in. It’s currently run by craven (and, yes, often racist) nativists whose antipathy towards dirty foreigners from “[expletive] hole countries” leads them to cower in fear from women and children.

    Who should pay for them? Americans are exceptionally generous people, I’m sure they would happily voluntarily open their wallets to help those few who couldn’t quickly become self supporting. As Americans have always done.

     

    Funny most American’s disagree with you.  Like they do on almost every topic.

    • #80
  21. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    So, Fred, who should pay for the increased number of refugees that you think we should bring into America?

    The barrier isn’t paying for them, as if a country with a $18 trillion dollar economy, where poor people are fat, couldn’t pay for refugees.

    The barrier is the government allowing them in. It’s currently run by craven (and, yes, often racist) nativists whose antipathy towards dirty foreigners from “[expletive] hole countries” leads them to cower in fear from women and children.

    Who should pay for them? Americans are exceptionally generous people, I’m sure they would happily voluntarily open their wallets to help those few who couldn’t quickly become self supporting. As Americans have always done.

     

    Funny most American’s disagree with you. Like they do on almost every topic.

    But Fred’s in favor of using government force to bring the refugees in anyway.  Cuz he’s libertarian.

     

    • #81
  22. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Now, Fred, the other question I asked was about who should pay for refugees.

    Just to signal my virtue: I would “sponsor” a refugee family if that were an option.

    Here ya go.

    Rooms for Refugees

     

    Oh yeah, pass it on to @fredcole who is such a high-minded generous individual. I’m sure he has room for at least one refugee family in his place.

    • #82
  23. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    And a thousand bombers with incendiaries to incinerate a city. But that’s what it took.

    We killed more people in the firebombing of Tokyo than we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

    Yup. Dresden was no picnic either.

    • #83
  24. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    Okay, so this is ridiculously dismissive.

    Good. It was meant to be.

    I wasn’t dismissive of Iran’s role in supporting international terrorism, which is well documented.

    I was dismissive of the idea that we have to fight Iran (via the Houthis) by giving material support to the Saudis, who are cutting deals with freakin’ Al Qaeda, with the end of opposing international terrorism.

    So our proxies (the Saudis) are cutting deals with freakin’ Al Qaeda in order to defeat someone else’s proxies (the Houthis), because it might somehow wound that someone else, who is bad bc they support international terrorism.

    Or it simply is not happening the way you describe it.  The AP story you link to states that this has been going on for the last 2 years. But during that same time period which would overlap both the Trump and Obama administrations, Obama’s team was drawing up plans to increase attacks on Al-queda, the plans were given to the Trump team who implemented them. They greatly increased US strikes against Al-queda during the same time period the AP is stating that the US was ignoring Al-queda. ( I want to be clear that this is a bipartisan response both Trump and Obama felt the need not to work with Al-queda but to attack)

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/09/trumps-ramped-up-bombing-in-yemen-signals-more-aggressive-use-of-military/

    Your own story quotes the Navy as showing they had over 140 bombings against Al-queda since the beginning of 2017. The Minister of State for the United Arab Emerates disputed this reporting and stated that as a result of the coalition efforts Al-queda in the region was at it’s weakest since 2012.

    A military spokesman for the Coalition forces declared this reporting not to be based on fact. The Coalition was attacking Al-queda, ISIS and the Houthis forces.

    I give the AP credit here for good reporting, they told both sides of the story.

    In the worst case scenario based , the US backed Coalition is letting Al-queda flee an area, thus putting the area more under the control of the Coalition.  The Coalition or the US independently attacks those same forces somewhere else. The AP report says that “we” allow Al-queda to leave cities and towns (where there would be lots of civilians deaths). One might think it is possible that they are allowed free passage out of populated areas and then bombed later when they are in less populated areas.

    • #84
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Now, Fred, the other question I asked was about who should pay for refugees.

    Just to signal my virtue: I would “sponsor” a refugee family if that were an option.

    Here ya go.

    Rooms for Refugees

     

    Fred can sign up today!

    • #85
  26. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    Right. I’m less worried about “the Mullahs” than I am about the Saudis. Iran is (nominally) a republic. Saudi Arabia is a brutal autocracy and wholly unworthy of American support.

    The Soviet Union was nominally a Republic.

    Iran has gone to great lengths to acquire nuclear and missile technology.Saudi was content not to. Until the Iranians did.

    I don’t remember any big government “Death to America” rallies during my time in Saudi.  As nasty as the Saudi’s are, they are not as insanely anti American as the Iranian government is.

    Pretty much everyone in that region with the exception of Israel is a brutal autocracy and not worthy of American support.  The Soviet Union was not worthy of our support, but we did it strategically in WW2.  I’d love to develop our own domestic energy  to the point we can tell them all to go to hell.

    • #86
  27. RoyNonaka Inactive
    RoyNonaka
    @RoyNonaka

    So let’s think about the alternatives here. The United States pulls all of its forces out of Yemen… Oh, we’re not in Yemen, just our munitions? Well, that’s basically the same same thing, it’s not as if we are a huge international arms supplier that sells weapons all around the world.

    So the United States stops selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, which would then end the… What? They would just buy weapons elsewhere with their billions of petrodollars?

    Okay, the United States stops selling weapons and demands that Saudi Arabia stop aerial bombings in Yemen. We could verify that by satellite, but of course that wouldn’t stop Saudi-sponsored ground operations.

    To truly verify that Saudi Arabia stops ground operations, the US would most likely have to have a few “boots-on-the-ground” in Yemen, which I know we said we should get out of Yemen, but you know what I mean.

    Let’s say all of that works perfectly and our “ally” Saudi Arabia stops interfering in Yemen. Does the civil war and all of its atrocities end? Do the “good guys” win? Are there good guys?

    Or do we simply avoid feeling guilt by association?

    • #87
  28. Lash LaRoche Inactive
    Lash LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):
    If the US were not involved in Yemen, there would still be refugees. And considering its size, the US (shamefully) takes in a trivial number of refugees.

    The US takes in far too many refugees.

    We shouldn’t take in any.

    • #88
  29. Lash LaRoche Inactive
    Lash LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I don’t want to import that culture, and right now, America is doing a poor job of acculteration of immigrants.

    America has always imported other cultures. We take the best of every culture on Earth and make it our own.

    And contrary to what the nativists tell themselves, America is really good at acculturating immigrants.

    Fake history.

    • #89
  30. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Surely any attempt to criticize our involvement has to take into account the likely reason why we’re involved. And that reason is Iran.

    That and the affiliation both American parties have with Saudi Arabia. No matter how much that country funds terrorist ideology around the world, or how tyrannically they oppress their own people, or how frequently they act against us at the UN, even after growth of America’s domestic oil production, the US remains a constant ally of the Arabs.

    Yes, much to our shame we’ve coddled them for almost 50 years. After the 1973 oil embargo, it should have been a national priority to minimize the influence of middle eastern oil producers. All those nations participated in that action and for me, earned undying enmity.

    Anyone who takes their coin should be shunned and excluded from polite society.

     

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.