Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
wins32767
Mar 16, 2007

PurpleXVI posted:

With regards to the Houthis blowing up everything within reach and it not really affecting Israel, I figure it's a calculated move to make the domestic audience feel like they're on the right side by opposing Israel/the big nebulous melange of "The West," attempting to make the world pay attention to the crisis by causing some trouble because they can't actually reach out and touch those majorly responsible(Israel itself, Israel's Western and regional supporters) OR all of the above.

They're Iranian proxies firing Iranian weapons. I'm not sure their domestic audience is worth analyzing all that much.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang
I would be utterly unsurprised if they do build a port, that the US will voluntarily hand it over to the Israelis to use as another point of entry to hit the Palestinians from.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

That's the point we are trying to get across. It is not a Saudi ship.

Are you sure you intended to reply to me? Your post doesn’t make any sense to me.

EDIT: AH! Sorry I was very sleepy when I replied and was inaccurate, yes. The ship itself wasn't SA, but was carrying stuff from SA, which is why I was referring to when I said it'd be breaking the treaty to hit it to begin with.

I think you may have mistaken me for the other side due to that, I was saying that beyond it being bad to attack ships unrelated to Israel, it's doubly so to attack ships that are suppose to be protected by a peace treaty the Houthis signed themselves.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 7, 2024

FrozenVent
May 1, 2009

The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

Kchama posted:

Also it has been confirmed to carry steel products and trucks.

Holy poo poo trucks and buses on deck and steel below, it’s like someone went out of their way to make an exam question real.

If only the trip had been from St Petersburg to New Orleans in winter I would have called bullshit, god drat.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

The Suffering of the Succotash.
Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

Quackles
Aug 11, 2018

Pixels of Light.


A.o.D. posted:

Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

:rimshot:

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

The Suffering of the Succotash.

When my many sins are read back to me at the pearly gates, I want Saint Pete to be MAD at me.

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



A.o.D. posted:

Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

boooooooooooooooo

Arc Light
Sep 26, 2013



A.o.D. posted:

Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

:golfclap:

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.
With the way that modern shipping works, the flag that a ship flies and the nationality of its crew is almost completely meaningless, since both are whatever's cheapest for the owners.

Kesper North
Nov 3, 2011

EMERGENCY POWER TO PARTY

A.o.D. posted:

Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

:dadjoke: oh my god

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



A.o.D. posted:

Would building this sea port in Gaza make the conflict over there a near pier conflict?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsZTFSfXaw

pantslesswithwolves
Oct 28, 2008

Ba-dam ba-DUMMMMMM

This is the company that is going to be running humanitarian aid out of the Gaza port- https://fogbow.ch

They don't list any countries where they've operated, agencies that they've worked with or their actual technical capabilities, but their company leadership bios are, uh, interesting. Here's a few:

quote:



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense – Middle East
20 years of service in the Central Intelligence Agency
Leader in CIA Special Activities Center ground and maritime operations
Maritime operations expert
Infantry, US Marine Corps
Founder of Lobo Institute – providing advisory services on current and future conflicts
Fogbow Vice President


quote:



Commander US Navy, retired
20 years active duty, US Navy SEAL
Commanded SEAL Team in Joint Special Operations Command
Maritime interdiction, anti-piracy expert
Founder of Lobo Institute – providing advisory services on current and future conflicts
Fogbow Chief of Operations


And only one guy who actually seems to have a background in humanitarian assistance:

quote:



20+ years experience with the United Nations
20 years leading humanitarian teams
Coordination specialist in humanitarian crisis
Expert in international humanitarian law
High level negotiations in multilateral organizations
Fogbow Director of Humanitarian Initiatives


This looks like the board of a company bidding on a vendor contract with JSOC, not who I would have expected to be running humanitarian shipments into Gaza. Would have figured that there would have been Army SF or Civil Affairs types here given that they actually have experience providing humanitarian assistance in semi-permissive or denied areas rather than the guys who show up, kill everything on target and then write a book about it.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012



pantslesswithwolves posted:

This is the company that is going to be running humanitarian aid out of the Gaza port- https://fogbow.ch

They don't list any countries where they've operated, agencies that they've worked with or their actual technical capabilities, but their company leadership bios are, uh, interesting. Here's a few:



And only one guy who actually seems to have a background in humanitarian assistance:

This looks like the board of a company bidding on a vendor contract with JSOC, not who I would have expected to be running humanitarian shipments into Gaza. Would have figured that there would have been Army SF or Civil Affairs types here given that they actually have experience providing humanitarian assistance in semi-permissive or denied areas rather than the guys who show up, kill everything on target and then write a book about it.

Shell company go brrr

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


pantslesswithwolves posted:

This is the company that is going to be running humanitarian aid out of the Gaza port- https://fogbow.ch

They don't list any countries where they've operated, agencies that they've worked with or their actual technical capabilities, but their company leadership bios are, uh, interesting. Here's a few:



And only one guy who actually seems to have a background in humanitarian assistance:

This looks like the board of a company bidding on a vendor contract with JSOC, not who I would have expected to be running humanitarian shipments into Gaza. Would have figured that there would have been Army SF or Civil Affairs types here given that they actually have experience providing humanitarian assistance in semi-permissive or denied areas rather than the guys who show up, kill everything on target and then write a book about it.

I was wondering why Viktor Bout was showing up in my timelines again.

Lemniscate Blue
Apr 21, 2006

Here we go again.

pantslesswithwolves posted:

This is the company that is going to be running humanitarian aid out of the Gaza port- https://fogbow.ch

They don't list any countries where they've operated, agencies that they've worked with or their actual technical capabilities, but their company leadership bios are, uh, interesting. Here's a few:



And only one guy who actually seems to have a background in humanitarian assistance:

This looks like the board of a company bidding on a vendor contract with JSOC, not who I would have expected to be running humanitarian shipments into Gaza. Would have figured that there would have been Army SF or Civil Affairs types here given that they actually have experience providing humanitarian assistance in semi-permissive or denied areas rather than the guys who show up, kill everything on target and then write a book about it.

Three letter agent, glow so bright!

Also, the .ch domain is for Switzerland, which I didn't know until I just now looked it up. Odd choice.

Also also the site appears to be down?

goatsestretchgoals
Jun 4, 2011

I (as of 12:10ish -8) saw iOS Safari bitch about SSL certs. I reloaded at 12:20 and Firefox did not complain, nor did Safari.

lol, and lmao

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

:geno: Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Lemniscate Blue posted:

Three letter agent, glow so bright!

Also, the .ch domain is for Switzerland, which I didn't know until I just now looked it up. Odd choice.

It's the Latin name for the Swiss Confederation, Confoederatio helvetica. They use it a lot on official, I assume it's a mix of romanticism and it being a compromise language (ie. none of the national languages)

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

I would be utterly unsurprised if they do build a port, that the US will voluntarily hand it over to the Israelis to use as another point of entry to hit the Palestinians from.

Israel does not need to get on boats to get to Gaza. They're already in Gaza, and are essentially free to maneuver anywhere in there. I urge some general analysis of practicalities before catastrophizing into really weird Biden Bad-scenarios.

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang
Israel doesn't need most of the support it's been getting, it hasn't stopped America providing it. And as you know, Biden's just said that the Israelis will be in de facto control of it. So I don't really get where your argument comes from. It's building an ingress point and giving it to the genocidal fucks who are currently attacking the Palestinians.

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Israel doesn't need most of the support it's been getting, it hasn't stopped America providing it. And as you know, Biden's just said that the Israelis will be in de facto control of it. So I don't really get where your argument comes from. It's building an ingress point and giving it to the genocidal fucks who are currently attacking the Palestinians.

You made this "prediction" in another thread so imma quote myself:


Reported Israeli troop movements last updated today at Financial Times.
The limits of advance are not prevented by any kind of conventional military force creating a front line or anything, but rather the Israeli Army doing whatever the gently caress it does (crimes) and advancing slowly. Where do you intend in your scenario that they're gonna sail to? Cyprus? Where's the "ingress point" gonna be here? Are the troops in Gaza going to go to a harbor and then get on ships and then disembark in Gaza?

https://www.ft.com/content/42bbe534-8a0d-4ba8-9cc6-f84936d87196

FrozenVent
May 1, 2009

The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.
An update on the impact the Houthis are having on the shipping industry:

https://gcaptain.com/baltic-dry-index-notches-fifth-straight-weekly-gain/

Number goes up!

(Boats taking the long way round decreases availability, this drives up utilization and price, especially since the shipowners will be passing any additional costs to the shippers)

Electric Wrigglies
Feb 6, 2015

Even if they don't need another ingress point, it makes things easier (ships are cheaper than trucks, especially if what you are bringing in is from overseas anyway) and more importantly, it is another enclave that will not be turned over to Palestine even if Israel withdrawals. Like Kaliningrad.

Count Roland
Oct 6, 2013

Electric Wrigglies posted:

Even if they don't need another ingress point, it makes things easier (ships are cheaper than trucks, especially if what you are bringing in is from overseas anyway) and more importantly, it is another enclave that will not be turned over to Palestine even if Israel withdrawals. Like Kaliningrad.

Comparing a floating dock whose construction has not yet started to Kaliningrad is quite the take. Lets see if the dock is even completed.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

Israel does not want a SPOD that's within mortar range of everyone and their mother in Gaza in order to manage logistics into an area that is never more than 12km across. This is all about managing a flow of goods into Gaza in a manner where there is no possibility of smuggling.

That's the nefarious risk here, it's not that we get '100m2 Kaliningrad', it's that instead of trucks and boats it just becomes boats.

piL
Sep 20, 2007
(__|\\\\)
Taco Defender

Count Roland posted:

Comparing a floating dock whose construction has not yet started to Kaliningrad is quite the take. Lets see if the dock is even completed.

I think the more likely result is a dock, getting built / overseen by Americans, gets blown up along with those Americans, and with catastrophic results for the region.

Everyone will use not blowing up the boats as a bargaining chip and eventually it will be determined their presence is aiding the other team and attacks will be motivated. An attack will be costly, but Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will all be willing to pay the price in gold and blood.

Even if everything goes perfect and nobody touches the boats and nobody does anything fucky using the boats and somehow foreign aid does come in with no strings attached, it will be decried as an act of western imperialism or an western plot.

I think the planners will recognize this and there will be a lot of pushback on building the pier. Unless this gains a lot of support, this is going to die a bureaucratic death.

Alchenar posted:

Israel does not want a SPOD that's within mortar range of everyone and their mother in Gaza in order to manage logistics into an area that is never more than 12km across. This is all about managing a flow of goods into Gaza in a manner where there is no possibility of smuggling.

That's the nefarious risk here, it's not that we get '100m2 Kaliningrad', it's that instead of trucks and boats it just becomes boats.

I think it's also about sovereignty and law of the sea. By setting up controls from the coast, there's more standing for the countries overseeing aid to tell Israel they don't actually get a vote on this unless they want to vote with a missile.

Right now if I'm driving through your territorial waters and then on your roads past your checkpoints, you get a say and much of the world powers agree because they don't like the idea of foreign powers doing whatever they like on their soil. From the sea, Israel will have to enforce any kind of claim, that claim will not be consistent with UNCLOS and the US has a long tradition of telling even allies to shove it when they place restrictions beyond UNCLOS on the use of the sea.

Israel will still have other levers though, and I don't see this actually happening as described above.

piL fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 10, 2024

M_Gargantua
Oct 16, 2006

STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES

Exciting Lemon
The US Navy has a very common “Mission” assigned to ships when they’re just loving around. It’s called Assured Access and the first part of it is driving wherever the gently caress you want to show everyone else you are committed to open sea access, ostensibly for everyone but really for US interests in particular. The second part of it is doing soundings and seafloor sonar scans and getting acoustic measurements and baselines and aggregating data of local sea traffic and maybe doing some mine laying or mine clearance training while you’re there.

The mapping aspect is a bit more important in places like the Philippines where you’ve got thousands of small waterways but even in the eastern med or Red Sea it’s important data to keep current.

Cugel the Clever
Apr 5, 2009
I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA
Looks like the US abstained from the latest UNSC ceasefire resolution. Though this is watered down and has no mechanism for enforcement, it still suggests a significant rupture in the relationship between the states. Not significant enough to satisfy me, much less protect the couple million Palestinians Israel is deliberately starving to death in Gaza, but still.

Kith
Sep 17, 2009

You never learn anything
by doing it right.


At least it's not another loving veto.

shwinnebego
Jul 11, 2002

wins32767 posted:

They're Iranian proxies firing Iranian weapons. I'm not sure their domestic audience is worth analyzing all that much.

They are not Iranian proxies according to scholars who have spent time studying the history.. Some good background here: https://thedigradio.com/podcast/yemen-and-the-houthis-w-helen-lackner/ and a shorter story here https://www.democracynow.org/2024/2/1/yemen_strikes

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

shwinnebego posted:

They are not Iranian proxies according to scholars who have spent time studying the history.. Some good background here: https://thedigradio.com/podcast/yemen-and-the-houthis-w-helen-lackner/ and a shorter story here https://www.democracynow.org/2024/2/1/yemen_strikes

Yeah they just happen to pledge to avoid shooting at noted allies of Iran, despite one of them being one of Israel's biggest trade partners. But that has nothing to do with Iran.

Both of those appear to be quoting the same singular scholar.

Like, the thrust of her argument is that the Houthis are independent despite the whole "working for Iran" deal, so they aren't technically proxies. I'm not sure who qualifies as a proxy under that argument. I mean, while I don't doubt the Houthis doesn't need much encouragement to gently caress with Israel, seeing as how it is literally their motto to gently caress with Israel, even she admits that Iran is very active in the Houthis' military business.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Mar 26, 2024

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

The Suffering of the Succotash.

Kchama posted:

Yeah they just happen to pledge to avoid shooting at noted allies of Iran, despite one of them being one of Israel's biggest trade partners. But that has nothing to do with Iran.

Both of those appear to be quoting the same singular scholar.

Like, the thrust of her argument is that the Houthis are independent despite the whole "working for Iran" deal, so they aren't technically proxies. I'm not sure who qualifies as a proxy under that argument. I mean, while I don't doubt the Houthis doesn't need much encouragement to gently caress with Israel, seeing as how it is literally their motto to gently caress with Israel, even she admits that Iran is very active in the Houthis' military business.

There's a difference between receiving military aid from Iran and being an Iranian proxy. I believe that the distinction being made is that while they're aligned with Iran, they don't take their orders from there.

Cugel the Clever
Apr 5, 2009
I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

shwinnebego posted:

They are not Iranian proxies according to scholars who have spent time studying the history.. Some good background here: https://thedigradio.com/podcast/yemen-and-the-houthis-w-helen-lackner/ and a shorter story here https://www.democracynow.org/2024/2/1/yemen_strikes
Lackner is certainly a scholar, but there's nothing in there to indicate she's by any means representative. The key argument appears to be a what I'd charitably attribute to a misunderstanding of the term "proxy" as an absolute puppetting, rather than the far more broadly recognized, nuanced framing of two independent states with a major power differential wherein the more powerful leverages the weaker to further its foreign policy against a mutual adversary. Offering her audience a misleading definition which happens to further her position is just a mistake, I'm sure.

Hell, the argument over whether they are "proxies" or not is itself deliberate misdirection from the actions themselves which are the actual targets of criticism. If the Houthis were selling flowers and kissing puppies, no one would give a poo poo. But raise the subject of the attacks and suddenly the anti-Western "left" gets all squirmy, either attempting to derail to a more defensible but tangential point or outright declaring the attacks to be noble and anti-imperialistic.

Why folks choose to voluntarily climb that hill and show their full rear end is beyond me.

Grip it and rip it
Apr 28, 2020
Well posting is praxis, and sometimes you show your whole rear end...

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>
Quibbling over proxy as a specific term rather misses the point of the way Iran has endeavored to build and project power throughout the region by building up a network of aligned military and paramilitary forces that, while independent of Iran, are also heavily linked to Iran, in Iran's debt, and generally dependent on Iran for advanced capabilities and equipment to the extent that Iran's leverage is unmistakeable. That said, Iran's diplomatic tact has been more to emphasize common interest than to compel action and Iran and the Houthis have significant common interests and adversaries. Whatever you want to call it, Iran and the Houthis are very closely linked and they're one of many groups whose position is strengthened when Iran's position is strengthened.

As an aside, Iran's regional policy is generally way more effective than Americans tend to give it credit for.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Mar 26, 2024

LtCol J. Krusinski
May 7, 2013

Cugel the Clever posted:

Why folks choose to voluntarily climb that hill and show their full rear end is beyond me.

It’s GiP. 7.5-8 out of 10 of us volunteered to show a MEPS doctor our whole rear end in a top hat in exchange for less than minimum wage jobs were you could get yourself and a lot of others hurt or killed, lol.

Showing your whole rear end is praxis imho, whatever the gently caress that word means.

PurpleXVI
Oct 30, 2011

Spewing insults, pissing off all your neighbors, betraying your allies, backing out of treaties and accords, and generally screwing over the global environment?
ALL PART OF MY BRILLIANT STRATEGY!

Cugel the Clever posted:

Hell, the argument over whether they are "proxies" or not is itself deliberate misdirection from the actions themselves which are the actual targets of criticism. If the Houthis were selling flowers and kissing puppies, no one would give a poo poo. But raise the subject of the attacks and suddenly the anti-Western "left" gets all squirmy, either attempting to derail to a more defensible but tangential point or outright declaring the attacks to be noble and anti-imperialistic.

Why folks choose to voluntarily climb that hill and show their full rear end is beyond me.

I feel like while Yemen might technically be a proxy, what most people would understand as a "proxy" is a smaller nation with no agency of its own, that would not want to do what it does without its "master's" manipulation. My understanding is that the Houthis are more or less aligned with Iran's opinions and interests internationally as it is, so I'd call it more of an alliance with a major and minor partner, than a proxy arrangement.

The reason some people get upset about the proxy designation is, in my opinion, that some argumenters use it to go "well we should ignore what the Houthis say because they're just an Iranian mouthpiece, they get more bombs" rather than "okay, they're doing some bad things, but perhaps there are reasons behind their grudges which are worth having a look at, to see whether we can find some common ground or if, perhaps, we could do/stop doing things that would calm things down." Sure, there are probably some bad faith debaters, but likewise pointing and yelling "PROXY!" can also be used by bad actors.

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

Heartache is powerful, but democracy is *subtle*.

PurpleXVI posted:

I feel like while Yemen might technically be a proxy, what most people would understand as a "proxy" is a smaller nation with no agency of its own, that would not want to do what it does without its "master's" manipulation. My understanding is that the Houthis are more or less aligned with Iran's opinions and interests internationally as it is, so I'd call it more of an alliance with a major and minor partner, than a proxy arrangement.

The reason some people get upset about the proxy designation is, in my opinion, that some argumenters use it to go "well we should ignore what the Houthis say because they're just an Iranian mouthpiece, they get more bombs" rather than "okay, they're doing some bad things, but perhaps there are reasons behind their grudges which are worth having a look at, to see whether we can find some common ground or if, perhaps, we could do/stop doing things that would calm things down." Sure, there are probably some bad faith debaters, but likewise pointing and yelling "PROXY!" can also be used by bad actors.

I think you're partially right but you've got it a bit reversed. Iran is a rational actor that actually does respond to diplomacy (and, on occasion , force) and has reined in its proxies in the past. Allegedly, China and India actually told Iran to cut it out, but the Houthis ignored Iran and have continued to attack civilian shipping. The US tried via Saudi diplomatic channels and was similarly rebuffed.

So the problem here is that the Houthis are too independent and have their own motivations that are separate from Iran's. They're vying to gain legitimacy among the Arab world, and asserting themselves as an independent actor who's willing to attack "Western" shipping seems to be working. They gain nothing by finding common ground, because this isn't about asserting Iran's foreign policy objectives. It's about attaching themselves to a cause (the plight of the Palestinians) creating a story to support it.

In this scenario, bombing them could achieve the tactical objectives of re-opening the Red Sea to civilian traffic, but worsens the strategic outlook by providing further credibility to the fiction they've spun for themselves. I'm sure the US and UK weighed this as a factor before responding, because getting involved in Yemen serves zero strategic benefit for either country while carrying substantial downsides in legitimizing another extremist faction in the region.

psydude fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 26, 2024

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

PurpleXVI posted:

I feel like while Yemen might technically be a proxy, what most people would understand as a "proxy" is a smaller nation with no agency of its own, that would not want to do what it does without its "master's" manipulation. My understanding is that the Houthis are more or less aligned with Iran's opinions and interests internationally as it is, so I'd call it more of an alliance with a major and minor partner, than a proxy arrangement.

The reason some people get upset about the proxy designation is, in my opinion, that some argumenters use it to go "well we should ignore what the Houthis say because they're just an Iranian mouthpiece, they get more bombs" rather than "okay, they're doing some bad things, but perhaps there are reasons behind their grudges which are worth having a look at, to see whether we can find some common ground or if, perhaps, we could do/stop doing things that would calm things down." Sure, there are probably some bad faith debaters, but likewise pointing and yelling "PROXY!" can also be used by bad actors.

I just feel like if, for example, America had an identical relationship with the Houthis as Iran does, they'd be screaming 'proxy'.

Like the term is basically "do you dislike the more powerful nation Y/N? If Y, Proxy" to a lot of people. I just found it funny that that person's analysis involves Iran having a lot of say-so in Yemen affairs simply because of their interest in it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

The Suffering of the Succotash.

Kchama posted:

I just feel like if, for example, America had an identical relationship with the Houthis as Iran does, they'd be screaming 'proxy'.

Like the term is basically "do you dislike the more powerful nation Y/N? If Y, Proxy" to a lot of people. I just found it funny that that person's analysis involves Iran having a lot of say-so in Yemen affairs simply because of their interest in it.

I mean, Israel has been called a US proxy roughly an infinite number of times, and yet there is a mountain of evidence that rather conclusively proves the opposite, and you don't even have to consider recent events.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply