Houthis bombed by US, UK

Snowball

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
5,234
I've been warning that the Houthis should stop their ill-conceived and rather unpredictable and foolish Red Sea ship seizures and drone and missile assaults for weeks now. Not because I disagree with their sympathies of wanting to put pressure on the Israeli war on Palestinians but because they cannot accomplish their goals at all, and they placed their people and interests (to lead Yemen) at risk. Well, that risk has been wagered, and despite MANY warnings for a long time, including the most polite and respectful diplomatic efforts, they just didn't want to listen. What more, their assaults against US military vessels yesterday could not go unanswered.

So, they got what was coming to them. It's not like Iran was telling them to do this, or Hezbollah, they barely say anything at all about it. Hezbollah and Iran's support for the Houthi militants is supportive only in the general sense today, it was a military support years ago in the Yemen/Saudi war, but that ended years ago, and the Iranians and Saudis are much closer than previously, thanks to the efforts of Russia, China, and the highly objectionable actions of USUK and Israel. There hasn't been enough evidence to suggest that Iran or Hezbollah were influencing any of the al-Houthi decisions in the last couple months. I doubt it. BUT we can't write it off as a possibility that is concealed by the Iranians, if they are ready to strike Israel. That's the only way it makes sense for the Houthis. If they are being used (willingly) as a decoy or tinderbox that will drag the USUK into naval and air commitments and expenditures that will lessen their ability to defend Israel or launch full-scale war against Iran, Hezbollah, Gaza, Iraq, and Syria.

It still doesn't look that way at the moment, though. Sure, Iran has denounced the USUK strikes on Yemen (12+ targets, naval and air last night), but Iran is not cheering on the Houthis, either. I would also like to mention that Oman has denounced the strikes. That is important because it's location but perhaps more important as an indication that Oman wil swing to the Iranian camp in the event of regional war. Meanwhile, the Houthi leader says they are going to responfd much HARDER against the USUK and Israel and anyone that works with them or does business with them in the Red Sea. Well, then they are really asking for it, and it's dumb and wrong of them, UNLESS they are indeed part of the overall scheme that Iran (and Russia, China, DPRK) are implementing to really crush Western/Zionist power worldwide. When I say Zionist I mean it in the PRESENT and historical case. Not in the sense that Jews can't have a political entity in Palestine, and call it Israel, but that it MUST take another form, more acceptable and less militaristic, smaller and of non-warlike nature), that's what Russia and China can take, perhaps even Iran can take, if there is Palestinian Statehood and remission of all settlements stolen in the West Bank, release of prisoners, unclaiming of the Golan Heights, etc.)

Why is that important because if Iran Proper gets into a war with Israel, and the USUK, Russia and China are going to back them to an unknown extent. I think Europeans need to know this by now. Russia's own problems caused by the USUK, regardless of its leadership parties or personalities, have placed them into a mindset that is completely accepting of the notion that we are enemies in the full sense of the word. This has been going on for years now, and Iran, like Syria, is becoming a full-blown military ally of the Russians and Chinese in such a way that Russia cannot allow Iran in its present form to collapse. It needs them in the war against "the West", and it will defend Iran if necessary, at the expense of Israel, because most Russians today really don't like Israel, nor do Chinese. They will defend Syria and Iran.

Finally, to the point, IF the Houthis are being implemented logically by Iran, they are being implemented by Russia. We're going to find out SOON because if the Houthis significantly attack (deaths) USUK, then the Houthis will get pounded harder than they were last night, and they won't continue as a regime. If Iran and Hezbollah allows that to happen, then there was no agreement, and the Houthis really did bite of more than they could chew, all by themselves
 
Justin Amash:

One of the most frequently misrepresented federal statutes—often falsely used to justify unconstitutional presidential war powers—is the War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550).

If only more people would read it.

Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60-90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours.

Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.

The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.

It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1745675821899976757
 
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1745791418260480348
3rBDMHh.png
 
The so called The internationally recognized Yemeni government justified recent U.S. and U.K. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The same internationally recognized Yemeni government that had being starving Shia Civilians since the war in Yemen had started.

In blocking arms to Yemen, Saudi Arabia squeezes a starving population

The de facto blockade is exacting a dire humanitarian toll. The Saudi-led coalition’s ships are preventing essential supplies from entering Yemen, even in cases where vessels are carrying no weapons, according to previously unreported port records, a confidential United Nations report and interviews with humanitarian agencies and shipping lines.

Saudi Arabia’s new blockade is starving Yemen
 
I love it when a US president drops bombs somewhere without getting any kind of approval.

On its face it is insulting and degrading for mainstream "news" in the US to report that 1,500 more American troops are going to the Middle East to fight "ISIS" or "Daesh", when in reality, they are going to fight the Iraqi PMC's and try to stop Turkey from attacking the Kurdish/American oil facilities.

America's program to overthrow Assad in Syria and have operational control over all Iraq never ended. It has been continuous since the Iraq War, through a total of 4 Presidential administrations, 2 of each party, and that includes Trump.

What they won't tell you is the real reason WHY the government has to say they are still fighting "ISIS", a group that never existed indigenously, but rather arose from American and Israeli (and sometimes Saudi) sponsorship, which was branded as the Syrian Democratic Forces or ISIS. That is why Russia's military support of Syria was necessary to keep Assad in power, otherwise, Assad would have been overthrown and Syria would be another Iraq.

The legal reason is the same that the US uses to commit executive-level acts of war without Congressional approval, such as the ongoing attacks in Yemen and all its operations in the Middle East, including Israel. - the 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force, enacted 7 days after September 11th 2001, is the actual bill that authorizes the President to order attacks without consulting Congress against "terrorism". Another bill, the 2002 AUMF against Iraq was separately put in force to launch the Iraq War.

Therefore, any war can start without Congress. All the ruling administration has to do is LABEL a group as a "terrorist organization", and it's war. The AUMF has been used to authorize military operations in at least 10 different countries. (link: Anti-war and human rights groups have long pressured Congress to repeal both authorizations as a succession of presidents have used them to justify launching military operations in at least 10 countries without going to Congress first.

The same 2001 AUMF can and might be used to go to war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, I'm sure you've heard, is "the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism" - a term invented by the neocons for the above purpose - war without direct Congressional approval. It should be noted that although there have been successful repeal and replace efforts in both houses,

This being said, multiple attempts to overturn the 2002 AUMF against Iraq bill have passed both Houses of Congress, but for either intentional or "concidental" reasons, these have never made it to a presiden't desk. The Democrat-controlled House passed one in 2021, and the Democrat-controlled Senate this past year in 2023, but the Democrats lost the House in 2022. The current GOP House bill in Committee has not been voted on yet - but it NOTABLY makes exception for war against Iran or "Iranian-backed" militias, which the Republicans insist on keeping a target of the "new" 2002 AUMF - so that a president does not need congress to go to war against the whole region, if it can be labelled as "Iran-backed".

The two different AUMF's should not be confused, and they overlap. Both 2001 and 2002 are currently in-force.

Both are 100% Consitutional, because Congress already gave POTUS this authority. Additionally any American use of force against anyone including states directly is also authorised, and the protocols of that are in the 1973 War Powers Joint Resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

And people ask me why I say the Constitution is either a scam or insufficient? It DID THIS.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has carried out a missile strike on the US military base in the Koniko oil field, eastern Deir Ezzor region of Syria
https://t.me/WW3INFO/32424

Turkish shelling and airstrikes have targeted dozens of infrastructure facilities in northeast Syria over the past days, wounding at least 10 people and cutting out electricity and water supplies in wide areas held by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the war-torn country, Kurdish-led authorities in northeast Syria said Monday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ructure-facilities-wound-10-cut-off-106379009

New Jersey soldiers prepare to join fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria

https://news.yahoo.com/jersey-soldiers-prepare-join-fight-234100372.html

he U.S. media reported that some 1,500 soldiers will be deployed to Syria and Iraq to "fight against terrorist group Daesh." The move will likely anger Ankara, which complains of Washington's support for the terrorist group PKK, ostensibly to help their "fight against Daesh." A local branch of CBS reported that the New Jersey Army National Guard will dispatch its 1,500 members to two Middle Eastern countries in one of the largest military deployments in the region by the U.S. in more than a decade.

Troops will be part of Operation Inherent Resolve, a U.S. military campaign against Daesh from Iraq and Libya to Syria. Last year alone, the U.S. sent more than 3,000 soldiers to Syria and Iraq for the campaign. The website Axios reported that U.S. military presence in the region reached about 45,400 as of October 2023 and most are stationed in Kuwait.

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics...a-despite-turkish-outcry-for-pkk-support/news
 
Last edited:
Back
Top