https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/houthis-hamas-israel-iran-axis-resistance

<quotes>

The war launched by the "axis of resistance" against Israel and the US marks the first time in history that a coalition of non-state actors has collectively come to the defence of another non-state actor, namely Hamas.

What makes the axis such a cohesive and durable alliance is its deep-seated ideological pillars and shared strategic objectives.

The assumption that "sustained" military action against these actors will break their will to continue fighting is as misguided as it is dangerous.

The US and UK strikes on Yemen have only increased the prospects of a full-blown regional war, given that the Houthis have now threatened to widen the scope of their campaign to include "all US and UK interests" in the region.

</quotes>

The US and UK have walked themselves into a trap, another war they cannot win.

As with our last War on Muslims, every attack we engage in only increases support for those who hate us.

This could become the UK's first Vietnam, the US's second.

And quite possibly World War 3.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:29:22 +0000
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> The US and UK have walked themselves into a trap, another war they
> cannot win.

https://news.sky.com/story/houthis-and-iranians-have-laid-a-trap-and-the-uk-and-us-have-flown-right-in-13054528

<quotes>

It's not surprising the British and Americans have had another go at striking the Houthis in Yemen - but it's just not necessarily all that clever.

How far have they thought it through? The operations risk a lot, will almost certainly not achieve their goals and are already strengthening the enemy.

The Houthis and their Iranian patrons laid a trap and Britain and America have arguably walked, or flown right into it.

While corrupt, decadent autocratic Arab regimes, as millions of Arabs see them, are doing nothing about Gaza, the plucky Houthis are. And they are revelling in it.

The British and Americans are letting loose armaments worth tens of millions on one of the world's poorest countries to allow Israel to do the same in another equally impoverished area.

That is certainly how this is being seen by hundreds of millions.

None of that is any good for either countries' standing in the Arab world and beyond. It is a PR disaster for Britain and America and a huge boost for the Houthis and by association their Iranian patrons.

The airstrikes may be blowing up bunkers and weapons stockpiles or rearranging sand in the desert but in the battle for hearts and minds across the Middle East, they are handing a victory to Iran and its allies.

</quotes>

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 19:29:22 +0000
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The US and UK have walked themselves into a trap, another war they
>> cannot win.
>
> https://news.sky.com/story/houthis-and-iranians-have-laid-a-trap-and-the-uk-and-us-have-flown-right-in-13054528
>
> <quotes>
>
> It's not surprising the British and Americans have had another go at striking the Houthis in Yemen - but it's just not necessarily all that clever.
>
> How far have they thought it through? The operations risk a lot, will almost certainly not achieve their goals and are already strengthening the enemy.
>
> The Houthis and their Iranian patrons laid a trap and Britain and America have arguably walked, or flown right into it.
>
> While corrupt, decadent autocratic Arab regimes, as millions of Arabs see them, are doing nothing about Gaza, the plucky Houthis are. And they are revelling in it.
>
> The British and Americans are letting loose armaments worth tens of millions on one of the world's poorest countries to allow Israel to do the same in another equally impoverished area.
>
> That is certainly how this is being seen by hundreds of millions.
>
> None of that is any good for either countries' standing in the Arab world and beyond. It is a PR disaster for Britain and America and a huge boost for the Houthis and by association their Iranian patrons.
>
> The airstrikes may be blowing up bunkers and weapons stockpiles or rearranging sand in the desert but in the battle for hearts and minds across the Middle East, they are handing a victory to Iran and its allies.
>
> </quotes>

So what does an Iranian "victory" look like for them ?

The Hootys will get terrorist street cred for being a thorn in the side
to infidels whether or not we strike back, so what would you suggest,
just let them attack ships at will with no fear of consequences ?

If it is war, the goal for the Hootys will continue to be a thorn in the
side, and the goal of those attacking them will be render them impotent
to cause harm outside of their borders.
Objectively speaking, I think that both can do both, and your fears of
WW3 erupting are silly.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

In article <9w%rN.185301$vFZa.131614@fx13.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> The Happy Hippy wrote:

[dippiness flushed]

> Objectively speaking, I think that both can do both, and your fears of
> WW3 erupting are silly.

Hell no, don't say that to poor dippy. The only thing that gives him
hope in his miserable life is WW3. He's probably working on a manifesto
for the last 30 years, and when the nukes hit, his last words will be
"We are evil. We deserve it. Long live the revolution! Stalin was right!
Allahu Akbar!".

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:31:00 -0500
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> So what does an Iranian "victory" look like for them ?

Trump begging for a surrender deal as he did in Afghanistan.
Until then, continuing to make the Red Sea unusable while the west wastes billions of dollars on missiles to try and make it usable will be good enough for them.

> The Hootys will get terrorist street cred for being a thorn in the
> side to infidels whether or not we strike back, so what would you
> suggest, just let them attack ships at will with no fear of
> consequences ?

Attacking them and not stopping them being a thorn in the side isn't doing any good, is simply proving again that 'primitive sixth century savages armed only with sticks and stones' are indeed a match for America's supposed superiority.

You don't win a boxing match by throwing punches at the little guy when they simply get back up every time.

> If it is war, the goal for the Hootys will continue to be a thorn in
> the side, and the goal of those attacking them will be render them
> impotent to cause harm outside of their borders.
> Objectively speaking, I think that both can do both, and your fears
> of WW3 erupting are silly.

It comes down to how humiliated the west is prepared to be, how many tax payer dollars are they are prepared to pour into keeping the Red Sea open and failing.

At some point someone will realise that attacking the Houthis isn't doing the job, will suggest hitting Iran. When they do it will really kick off with all the potential for escalation, even WW3.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 22:31:00 -0500
> JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
>> So what does an Iranian "victory" look like for them ?
>
> Trump begging for a surrender deal as he did in Afghanistan.
>
> Until then, continuing to make the Red Sea unusable while the west wastes billions of dollars on missiles to try and make it usable will be good enough for them.

Am obviously not following hippy logic but, then again, I expected that.
Trump begging the mullahs to have mercy ok, got it.

>
>
>> The Hootys will get terrorist street cred for being a thorn in the
>> side to infidels whether or not we strike back, so what would you
>> suggest, just let them attack ships at will with no fear of
>> consequences ?
>
> Attacking them and not stopping them being a thorn in the side isn't doing any good, is simply proving again that 'primitive sixth century savages armed only with sticks and stones' are indeed a match for America's supposed superiority.
>
> You don't win a boxing match by throwing punches at the little guy when they simply get back up every time.

You don't know what good its doing, not even remotely.
You don't know what weapons they had vs what they have now after being
attacked, nor do you know their state of supply, the state of their
capacity to be resupplied.

>
>
>> If it is war, the goal for the Hootys will continue to be a thorn in
>> the side, and the goal of those attacking them will be render them
>> impotent to cause harm outside of their borders.
>> Objectively speaking, I think that both can do both, and your fears
>> of WW3 erupting are silly.
>
> It comes down to how humiliated the west is prepared to be, how many tax payer dollars are they are prepared to pour into keeping the Red Sea open and failing.
>
> At some point someone will realise that attacking the Houthis isn't doing the job, will suggest hitting Iran. When they do it will really kick off with all the potential for escalation, even WW3.
>

Attacks against Iran itself have been speculated on for years, they have
been issued stern warnings. They have claimed multiple "red lines" that
would prompt them into attacking us, including jews bombing muslims,
jews invading gaza, and they let them both slide without doing a single
thing.
I posted about it multiple times, and you act as though this is
something new and that iran is some omni potent force that will plunge
the world into doom any time they chose.

LC was right, you are a doom meister. The only possible scenario of
plunging the world into WW3 over Hootys attacking ships is Iran finally
deciding to take action and attack us, us destroying anything iran has
that floats or shoots, Russia "rushing" in and declaring that any more
strikes against iran and they would get involved, and Russia actually
making good on her threats.
Russia has almost 0 capability of intervening in that region, so their
only effective gambit would be [yet another] nuclear threat, and I rank
this whole scenario as highly improbable.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.