U.S. reveals troops on the ground in Yemen

[Kellhound]

My mistake - I thought you'd said very little of relevance, when in fact you were saying nothing.

Technically I wrote something.

[Ulmita]

Ah yes, it is a great thing for Russia to help the Syrian military in its civil war, but bad that the US helps the Yemeni military in there civil war.

At least Russia is some what relevant with Syria as they are their ally, what is Yemen to you?

[Kellhound]

At least Russia is some what relevant with Syria as they are their ally, what is Yemen to you?

A shithole that has little to no use (like Syria oddly enough) other than how it plays in area politics (again like Syria), though one could argue that strategically Yemen is more important from a commerce perspective than Syria.

[caervek]

So, the US is back to fighting against Al-Qaeda, but still supporting them politically in Syria? What do Al-Qaeda make of this? lol.

[Grummgug]

US military foreign policy:


1950s-1970s:

US military foreign policy was about major land invasions with a large formal military presence. The media eternally looked for ways to turn the public against the effort and eventually did so with criticism centered around the Tet offensive. The most effective strategy the press used to turn public opinion against the war was daily death counts in the newspaper of US troops.

1980s:

The antiwar movement around Vietnam caused the US to shift tactics. Instead of a large formal military presence, the US focused on supplying one side or the other with military hardware and training, or at most small tactical strike teams. This strategy proved effective in muting daily death counts in the press, which made it extremely difficult to turn public opinion against these actions. Some examples are the invasion of Grenada in 1983 with 7000 troops, funding and training the Contras in Nicaragua, or Operation Nifty Package where a strike team of 52 US troops captured Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989.

1990s:

Saddam Hussein forced the US to return to a large scale military action, but the move was buffered by Bush assembling an international coalition, plus a refusal to actually invade Iraq but limit the goal to evicting Iraq from Kuwait. The tactic of assembling a coalition was again used in Bosnia later in the decade, again without a large occupying force. In both cases, casualties were limited.

2000s:

It had been 30 years since Vietnam and with 911 pressuring the US government, they return to full-scale invasion, knowing full-well that death counts will be high. These counts get reported in the paper and are the biggest reason public opinion turns against the war. Once Obama is elected, the press stops the daily death counts.

2010s:

The daily death counts in the press are (rightfully) considered the #1 problem with military actions abroad because of the Iraq invasion. Obama returns the US to Reagan-style tactical strike teams. A small strike team kills Bin Laden in a very Reaganesque fashion that reminds us of Noriega. Cruise missile strikes on Libya help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi without the US actually sending in troops. A small squad of troops are on the ground in Yemen supporting and assisting the Yemeni military. And in each case, it is pretty much impossible to turn public opinion against any of these moves because the US troop death counts and negligible if not zero.

[caervek]

Cruise missile strikes on Libya help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi without the US actually sending in troops. A small squad of troops are on the ground in Yemen supporting and assisting the Yemeni military. And in each case, it is pretty much impossible to turn public opinion against any of these moves because the US troop death counts and negligible if not zero.

So basically the American people don't care what bad things their government does as long as it doesn't get Americans killed? Was the really no opposition to Libya? it was super unpopular over in the UK (not as unpopular as Iraq but still majority of people against it).

[Tackhisis]

Millions of people died in Soviet Russia under Stalin

In 1930s there were people dying everywhere in the world, including USA and Europe. Yet those 'millions of dying people' somehow managed to complete the industrial revolution and bring their country into the ranks of superpowers.

[Garnier Fructis]

In 1930s there were people dying everywhere in the world, including USA and Europe. Yet those 'millions of dying people' somehow managed to complete the industrial revolution and bring their country into the ranks of superpowers.

Mao managed to starve 10s of millions of his people during his Great Leap Backward; but I guess that's all fine and dandy because they're an economic powerhouse now? It's ridiculous to point to industrialization in response to Stalin's crimes. This is all irrelevant anyhow, since Stalin lead the Soviet Union after most all of the industrialization was done.

Yes, those millions of dying people manage to complete the industrial revolution. They managed this feat by doing it before Stalin came to power and whacked them all.

I'm curious; what's your opinion of the group in Russia that's going around and putting up plaques at the last known residences of Stalin's victims? Are they 'traitors?'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35626990

[May90]

In 1930s there were people dying everywhere in the world, including USA and Europe. Yet those 'millions of dying people' somehow managed to complete the industrial revolution and bring their country into the ranks of superpowers.

That's such a poor argument... Yes, people were dying everywhere; doesn't mean those deaths were somehow comparable. There is a difference between people dying naturally, and people dying in concentration camps and political mass executions.

[Kellhound]

So basically the American people don't care what bad things their government does as long as it doesn't get Americans killed? Was the really no opposition to Libya? it was super unpopular over in the UK (not as unpopular as Iraq but still majority of people against it).

Libya wasnt really much of a thing in the US.

[caervek]

Libya wasnt really much of a thing in the US.

That saddens me, I actually thought the average American was more caring about the horrors their government does in their name

[Dsc]

That saddens me, I actually thought the average American was more caring about the horrors their government does in their name

People complained, Just like Iraq, but the Leftist Media won't touch Obama or Clinton. :/