You're viewing a single thread.
This is misinformation and rage bait, as much as the US military would probably froth at the mouth to start more wars, this is simply deliberately untrue. The only declaration from the US about Yemen thus far been that UN naval assets (Chinese, American, British, French ships so far) will be mobilized to closely escort shipping through the strait and Red Sea, and that those assets have authorization to fire upon inbound pirates, missiles, and drones. The operation is titled Operation Prosperity Guardian if anyone is curious.
This was decided upon at the UN Security Council, and composes 38 different nations, this is not simply a US military decision. The directive simply creates a dedicated task force from assets originally assigned to patrol in the Indian Ocean, and along the Somali coast, into dedicated escort units. The taskforce itself is also simply a redeployment of a taskforce that was headed by the Egyptian Navy until earlier this year when the Egypt ceded leadership of that particular task force.
The US military is a force of evil, but if we mindlessly sensationalize and lie about the reality of situations, then no one will believe us when it will be most important.
Can you specify which UN SC resolution authorizes this "Operation Prosperity Guardian"?
I also looked up the website for CMF (Combined Maritime Forces) and this is on their about page: https://combinedmaritimeforces.com/about/
CMF has five Combined Task Forces:
- CTF 150 (Maritime Security Operations outside the Arabian Gulf)
- CTF 151 (Counter Piracy)
- CTF 152 (Maritime Security Operations inside the Arabian Gulf)
- CTF 153 (Red Sea Maritime Security)
- CTF 154 (Maritime Security Training)
CMF has 39 member nations: Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Türkiye, UAE, United Kingdom, United States, and Yemen.
I'm not sure how China or the UN is related to this operation at all, when this is the US DoD's statement: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3621110/statement-from-secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-on-ensuring-freedom-of-n/
The recent escalation in reckless Houthi attacks originating from Yemen threatens the free flow of commerce, endangers innocent mariners, and violates international law. The Red Sea is a critical waterway that has been essential to freedom of navigation and a major commercial corridor that facilitates international trade. Countries that seek to uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation must come together to tackle the challenge posed by this non-state actor launching ballistic missiles and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) at merchant vessels from many nations lawfully transiting international waters.
This is an international challenge that demands collective action. Therefore, today I am announcing the establishment of Operation Prosperity Guardian, an important new multinational security initiative under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces and the leadership of its Task Force 153, which focuses on security in the Red Sea.
Operation Prosperity Guardian is bringing together multiple countries to include the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain, to jointly address security challenges in the southern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, with the goal of ensuring freedom of navigation for all countries and bolstering regional security and prosperity.
China is not a part of Operation Prosperity Guardian.
They are one of the 34 nations whose ships make up CTF 153. Even if they do not directly support or sponsee the operation, the PLAN is still a part of it.
China refused to be part of this.
You've been making stuff up throughout this thread. Why are doing this?
Operation Prosperity Guardian
I did a quick Google search and see no mention of China.
All the lists only include: United States, United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles, Spain.
The government of Bahrain being a foreign monarchy never represented the Bahraini people. It instead has been nationalizing loyal foreigners to alter the demographics in its favour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bani_Utbah_invasion_of_Bahrain
I will say that the Wikipedia article is incomplete and not really reliable, as it normally is for current events. I assume that’s where you got this information, since that’s the only place I’ve seen those countries listed in that way, and Wikipedias source seem to be that those are the countries out of the total 34 that have made public statements regarding their involvement.
The only declaration from the US about Yemen thus far been that UN naval assets will be mobilized to closely escort shipping
This escort is required to deal with the response to the US sanctioned genocide, right?
This was decided upon at the UN Security Council
So the US is using the UN to give credence to its actions. Okay. What part specifically do you take issue with here? The "war" designation?
I'm just giving context, there's no need to be passive aggressive or hostile. Do you think I'm defending the US or Israel? Where did I ever state that this is some righteous cause?
Its not just the "war" designation. The way they describe it in the Tweet harkens images of the Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, or countless other bloody conflicts in which millions died at the hands of combined offensives. Not the UN dispatching 4 destroyers to escort merchant ships in a story that is barely a footnote in the news. This is needless sensationalism and looks like crying wolf.
What "actions"? You make it sound as if the US is using the UN as pretext to annex Yemen, which if that was the case, do you think that the other members on the Security Council might have some objections and would have used their veto power? Do you think China would allow the US to use the naval assets they requisitioned for this operation, and are currently under the command of a US Navy officer, to aggressively strike the Houthis?
I’m just giving context, there’s no need to be passive aggressive or hostile.
Oh come on. There's no need to be dishonest. I'm responding in kind to your screeching tone.
"deliberately untrue."... "The operation is titled Operation Prosperity Guardian if anyone is curious."
This is reddit quality sneering commentary. You seem to be triggered simply by the bald fact that this is an entirely American led operation in response to another American led atrocity.
The way they describe it in the Tweet harkens images of the Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, or countless other bloody conflicts in which millions died at the hands of combined offensives.
This is all in your mind. This is purely your inference. I see nothing to support this.
Not the UN dispatching 4 destroyers to escort merchant ships
These innocent escort ships are called "destroyers".
This is needless sensationalism and looks like crying wolf.
Your apologia seems like needless trivialising and crybullying to me.
What “actions”?
The attempted neutering of the only real response we've seen to the US/Israel genocide.
You make it sound as if the US is using the UN as pretext to annex Yemen, which if that was the case, do you think
Your panicky attempt to put words in my mouth and defend your scarecrow won't work here.
Do you think China would allow the US to use the naval assets they requisitioned for this operation, and are currently under the command of a US Navy officer, to aggressively strike the Houthis?
So it's under the command of a US Navy officer now, and not just some humdrum, run of the mill UN operation that's just going through the motions?
You've misread things here, I think.
When I read the OP tweet saying that the US is 'preparing to go to war' my first thought was that it was preparing to go to war, as it did in Iraq and a host of other places. Not a joint operation with a broad coalition of forces. An invasion. Because that's usually what it means when we hear the US is preparing for war.
Then:
“The operation is titled Operation Prosperity Guardian if anyone is curious.”
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn't come across as screeching or sneering. Characterising that sentence as such and then talking about being 'triggered' or 'Reddit-anything' is disingenuous and/or ironic in light of: 'this is all in your mind', 'crybullying', 'panicky attempt', 'scarecrow'. This is not the way of a good faith discussion, not to mention the ableism.
ComradeSalad appears to have identified 'misinformation and ragebait' and there is a big difference between that and impliedly supporting the US. I for one am glad of it, so that I don't repeat falsehoods. There's enough to criticise the US about, as you noted in another comment above, without sensationalism.
When I read the OP tweet saying that the US is ‘preparing to go to war’ my first thought was that it was preparing to go to war, as it did in Iraq and a host of other places. Not a joint operation with a broad coalition of forces. An invasion. Because that’s usually what it means when we hear the US is preparing for war.
I don't know what to say about this. I read it as a figure of speech. Something the other guy is claiming as his defense now. I think it's a weird reading to think this in any way meant an "invasion". The trading of military projectiles is all I thought about.
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering. Characterising that sentence as such
Please don't attempt this conflation. I characterised their angry response as a whole a "screeching". I characterised this sentence as "sneering", please don't misrepresent me.
‘this is all in your mind’, ‘crybullying’, ‘panicky attempt’, ‘scarecrow’. This is not the way of a good faith discussion,
This is all in response to OP's raging defense of America's brutality in the region. Specifically its aggression towards the only material state defense against its genocide.
not to mention the ableism.
Excuse me? It sounds like you're attempting to dishonestly gain some kind of moralistic, liberal upper hand by accusing me of this. Please explain yourself. Where is this ableism? Now this is not the way of a good faith discussion.
ComradeSalad appears to have identified ‘misinformation and ragebait’
I disagree. They've enacted a completely over the top histrionic defence of the USA's actions here and decided to uncharitably take issue with a simple tweet as a literal, legal statement of fact.
and there is a big difference between that and impliedly supporting the US.
Then you can insert your own explanation for his extreme emotional reaction?
I for one am glad of it, so that I don’t repeat falsehoods. There’s enough to criticise the US about, as you noted in another comment above, without sensationalism.
Agreed. Now you better back up your allegations against me making ableist comments. Since we're taking everything extremely literally here, as if this is a court of law. I take your accusation very seriously.
I had deleted my comment as I didn't like how I'd phrased some of it but you've managed to see it and reply, so I'll address one of the points.
This seems to be the root of it:
defense of America's brutality.
I don't know how you're getting that from what was said. But nevermind, my issue is with the way that you challenge ComradeSalad. I think you've missed the mark because they don't say what you think they are saying, and so you aren't tackling the argument but the tone of it.
‘this is all in your mind’ … ‘panicky attempt’
Seems to me that you're questioning ComradeSalad's state of mind, repeatedly, to dismiss what they're saying. And you've doubled down, whether you realise it or not:
'over the top histrionic defence' … 'extreme emotional reaction' … 'raging defence' …
You might not be doing this on purpose but casting doubt on someone's emotional/mental state to discredit what they're saying is ableist. It relies on a model of mental capacity that is used to deny autonomy to people. You might be writing just one comment but some of it's premises rest on that ableist system.
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering.
Please don’t attempt this conflation. I characterised their angry response as a whole a “screeching”. I characterised this sentence as “sneering”, please don’t misrepresent me.
This is pedantic. I'm talking about your comment as a whole, with that sentence as an example. The 'screeching' is also another example of the above, re: emotional state.
Since we’re taking everything extremely literally here, as if this is a court of law. I take your accusation very seriously.
You're taking this the wrong way. I'm saying all this because you need to reflect on how you're talking to others. I wouldn't be saying all this if you had made an argument that focused on the substance of the OP. You don't have to agree with it. But you can't interpret it in a different way to the OP and others (me included, although you seem to disbelieve or question me) and then attack their mental state. It's not on.
You might not be doing this on purpose but casting doubt on someone’s emotional/mental state to discredit what they’re saying is ableist.
This is a disgrace. Shame on you. I won't be engaging with you any further you dishonest liar. This has been one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on here, let alone taken part in. Trying to twist words and weaponise ableism to "win" an argument. Go back to reddit.
You need to take a step back and look at this from another perspective. You're just coming across like a massive fuckwad with 0 ability for self reflection.
Likewise dickhead.
Bring an argument otherwise you're worse than what you're accusing me of being. This is a place for discussion, if you don't want to take part then just stay quiet.
Oh come on. There’s no need to be dishonest. I’m responding in kind to your screeching tone.
So you’re calling me a liar to my face? That’s a wonderful plan, and I’m sure you’re coming at this in good faith.
Why would I bother responding to you at this point if you assume that everything I’m saying is a lie, because what? Am I a fed? A supporter of the US military? Am I a sock account for Joe Biden? I want to know, what’s your reasoning? You’ve just been hostile and gone in guns blazing for no reason.
You’re entire argument is, “You’re lying, it’s all in your head and your interpretation, and you’re triggered”? The hell is wrong with you?
So you’re calling me a liar to my face?
This is an online, text-based media forum and I have not called you anything at all.
You're hysterical now and just shadow boxing. I think we can leave it there.
Imagine being pedantic over a figure of speech. You really got me there.
Coward, you go in guns blazing then immediately run away while claiming the other side is “hysterical”.
Where did I call you a liar? Anywhere? Figuratively? Literally? I have no idea what you're talking about.
One could argue it's better to sound the alarm pre-emptively so that people can mobilize to stop this from happening. If you only start to drum up outrage after the decision has already been made it's already too late. Even simply increasing the presence of western military assets in that area carries risks of escalation.
I agree, but this is not increasing the presence of Western assets. Those assets were already there for a purpose dictated by the UN and not under Western control. Unless you consider Chinese and Russian naval officers to be "Western control".
It hasn't even broken the news in the US, so I doubt that really meets the criteria of preparing for war. Along with the fact that China and Russia both signed off on this despite their veto power. Not to mention that what the Houthis are doing is still international piracy, and while myself and most of Lemmygrad agrees with it, it is still in violation of international law, so this move is a logical next step.
UN naval assets (Chinese, American, British, French ships so far) will be mobilized to closely escort shipping through the strait and Red Sea
Possible rare Chinese L? To my understanding the Houthis have only been striking shipping in some way associated with Israel, and joining forces with the imperialist crackerverse to safeguard their shipping during an ongoing genocide seems like a probable L to me.
That said, looking up "Prosperity Guardian" (even the name sounds like typical Anglo-fascist BS) doesn't give any impression of Chinese involvement. Just a bunch of "international community" nations, and two tiny island nations that may as well be microstates (Bahrain and Seychelles) tagging along for the ride, probably for western optics.
Granted, not much is known about the operation and unlike what we've come to expect from Western militaries that like to show their full hand, information remains limited. The Wikipedia page is sparse and relatively unsourced, and military public affairs have been tight lipped. Chinese involvement would be more or less guaranteed though, firstly as they signed off on the Operation despite their Security Council veto power, and along with the US and France, they operate the largest UN air and naval force in Djibouti.
Your understanding about what the Houthis have been doing is correct, and while it is a good cause, it is still in violation of international law, while simultaneously threatening the economies of a vast number of nations. That puts it a bit into perspective about why China and Russia haven't taken to kindly to the strikes, and why international opinion is particularly cold, even from Pro-Palestine nations. It is allying with the Western world, but I doubt Chinese officials would take to kindly to a major threat to one of the worlds largest maritime logistics points, especially as they are an exporter nation and rely on their goods making it cheaply and quickly to their target nations.
The name is definitely goofy though lol. I swear they just have some intern putting all these names into a random generator at this point.
Wikipedia is not a good source of information about China's military.Just because there are three warships nearby doesn't mean we have to take part in military operations.
I was just giving an example of how spare information is. I know Wikipedia isn’t a good source.
Further, China has far more then three ships in the region, three ships is actually the confirmed American contribution to the task force. The rest of the composition is unknown.
doesn’t mean we have to take part in military operations.
Because they are considered UN assets requisitioned for anti piracy duty, unless China withdrawals diplomatically from the operations in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, they cannot willing ignore orders from the task force unless the orders violate international law. The ships aren’t “Chinese” when they are participating, they’re UN, hence the international officers corp leading the task force and ships.
China is part of the operations in those waters willingly and have been for decades, hence their very own port, military base, and airport in Djibouti that were built for them.
Please keep up the criticism. You've been taking a lot of flak for contesting the idea that Ansarallah will have carte blanche to disrupt Red Sea shipping. But it's important to do that if we're to predict anything. And it's all hard enough to predict as it is, at the moment.
Thank you, that means quite a lot to hear you say that. Like you already pointed out, I’m just trying to add context and pushback to a very delicate and tense political situation where what’s going on isn’t clear cut and hardly heading towards an obvious conclusion.
I just hope that my context does not come across as disparaging the actions of the Ansarallah or supporting any action that might be taken against them, as I fully support what they are doing, and the cause they are doing it for. It just seems that it’s really easy for most to get lost in pure ideological support and forget that actions such as these have international consequences.
Like you also mentioned, making conclusions or predictions is a fools errand with how early in the situation it is, but it’s important to have all the available information before making any conclusions.
I understand why China and Russia- exporter nations- wouldn't take kindly to the strikes. But if what you suspect (of Chinese involvement) is true, joining the west in what amounts to imperial policing actions on behalf of a state actively committing genocide, I'd say it's not a good look.
Maybe China can provide some moderation within these operations (kinda doubt it). I suppose that's the best-case scenario. But the Houthis aren't, say, ISIS- and there's always going to be some discomfort from the notion of China going alongside with such actions. If you ask me it strikes me as reminiscent- if not at all in scale- to how the eight nation alliance "policed" and terrorized China back during the Boxer rebellion, and I would wonder if these actions might wind up being counterproductive for China and its reputation with average citizens within the region- governments will understand, sure, but the common folk may not, and I wouldn't blame them at all for it.
I can only hope that you’re right.
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1738212826144243786
So out of the 12 initial countries in "Operation Prosperity Guardian" against the Houthis, Spain basically said "wth guys? we never agreed to join this!", Australia is like "no way we're sending a ship" and France has already withdrawn...