Thursday, October 13, 2016

I Cannot Keep Up



Ostensibly because missiles have been fired at U.S. warships over the past several days.  My first thought when I heard about the missile attack several days ago was: Can you say "Gulf of Tonkin"?  But let's assume it's real.  Any reason why they should want to get rid of the U.S. presence? At any rate, why are U.S. warships in the Red Sea off Yemen?
The strikes marked the first shots fired by the U.S. in anger against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen’s long-running civil war. Officials haven't provided information on casualties from the U.S. missiles fired early Thursday.

[...]

[T]hese were limited self-defense strikes conducted to protect U.S. personnel, ships and freedom of navigation.

  Fox
Self-defense.
Meanwhile, the state news agency Saba— under Houthis' control— quoted an unnamed military official as saying that US accusations that a US destroyer had come under attack from areas under control of Houthis were false. He said, "all these claims are totally untrue and that the popular committees (Houthi militias) have nothing to do with such action."

[...]

He added, "such claims are part of the general context of creating false justifications to escalate assaults and cover up the continuous crimes committed by the aggression against the Yemeni people, along with the blockade imposed on it."

[...]

Sharaf loqman, spokesman for the Yemeni army, called it an "American farce to find a reason to interfere in Yemen directly after failure of the Saudis."
Saudis whom the US government is funding and providing refueling for air strikes.

Gulf of Tonkin possibilities still there.

Interesting isn't it that none of these purported missile strikes made a good landing? No US damage was incurred.

October 10
Two missiles targeted a US warship off the coast of Yemen on Sunday but missed the vessel and hit the water instead, a Pentagon spokesman said.

  CNN
October 11
While Pentagon officials yesterday conceded that it was “possible” that a pair of missiles fired from Yemen were aimed at the USS Mason, it turns out the US warship actually fired three missiles of its own in response to what officials didn’t even want to confirm was a real attack.

  AntiWar
October 12
The USS Mason was targeted by a missile Wednesday, which fell short of the ship and hit the sea, three days after two missiles were fired at the ship and also missed.

Houthi rebels who control part of Yemen's coastline are believed to have fired the missiles, possibly in retaliation for a Saudi Arabian airstrike on a funeral on Sunday that killed 140 and injured 525.

  UPI
"Are believed to have fired the missiles."
Since 2015, Saudi Arabia has led an air attack against Houthi rebels who took over the Yemeni government. The United States has been providing air refueling support and intelligence to the Saudis in their efforts, as well as sending military officials with the planning of some missions.

[...]

"Those who threaten our forces should know that U.S. commanders retain the right to defend their ships, and we will respond to this threat at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner," said Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook.
Sounds positively Israeli.
In recent months, the Obama administration has backed off on some support because it is concerned about the rapidly increasing number of dead from Saudi airstrikes. The strike on the funeral was harshly criticized by the administration, as well as a number of other countries and the United Nations, but the rebels and others believe the airstrike was supported by the U.S.
How could they possibly think that?
The U.S. cruise missile launches come as U.S. considers withdrawing its support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthis following Saturday's airstrike on the funeral and other troubling incidents of civilian casualties as a result of the Saudi bombing campaign.

  Fox News
Never mind Gulf of Tonkin false reporting, I don't suppose the Saudis would have any reason to fire on the US ship making sure the missiles fell short?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway

No comments: