Add Yemen to the list!

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
(Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday he was concerned about instability in Yemen and its impact on the fight against terrorism but declined to say whether Yemen's leader should step down immediately.

Yemen is being torn in two, pro-democracy supporters are trying to overthrow the current government while Al Qaeda is waiting in the back round to attack. The uprising has caused many senior government officials to step down, the Ex US ambassador says that it is only a matter of time until president Saleh of Yemen must step down.

Yemen is extremely important to United States counter-terrorism efforts. The United States sends about 300$ million a year to yemen to help it's military efforts, which have been rather effective at keeping Al Qaeda occupied from springing much more dangerous attacks. If the current Yemen government falls (which it is on track to do so) Then Al Qaeda will have gained valuable time to plan, and consolidate their efforts to launch much more deadly attacks throughout the middle east.

Furthermore, more and more Middle-Eastern countries are witnessing similar revolts, it is only a matter of time before someone is going to step in, hopefully this time it wont be the United States, but who else would take the responsibility? France? lol. In all seriousness, they can't even launch their own attack on a third-world Lybia without our help.

Pray for peace friends.

www.reuters.com...

www.bloomberg.com...




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The term caliphate "dominion of a caliph ('successor,')," (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife ) refers to the first system of government established in Islam, and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). In theory, it is a constitutional republic[1] (see Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to an existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

be well



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


I'll read up on that, thanks



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


No prob. I think it is to match the:

The North American Union of the WEST (NAU) is a theoretical economic union, in some instances also a political union, of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The concept is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North American Dollar.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Yeah but did the Caliph hasn’t truly existed in almost 90 years and must be a descendent of the prophet.

So my question to you is this, why did you have to copy paste from Wiki (sorry but the style has wiki written all over it) and what does this have to do with this thread when the last Caliph was in turkey and not the Yemen.
edit on 22-3-2011 by kevinunknown because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


So my question to you is this, why did you have to copy paste from Wiki (sorry but the style has wiki written all over it) and what does this have to do with this thread when the last Caliph was in turkey and not the Yemen.
edit on 22-3-2011 by kevinunknown because: (no reason given)


Yes its wiki. I posted it because it seems a reorginization is in play over there to create a caliphate.

A caliphate is the traditional Islamic form of government, presided over by a caliph, either appointed or elected, who is considered the political leader of all Muslims. The caliphate also incorporates a shura, a body similar to a parliament, that represents the will of the people and may elect and/or advise the caliph. Though originally, and ideally according to some, a caliphate — or the caliphate — is a unique entity that unites all Muslims under its rule, there have been concurrent and even competing caliphates at some points in history.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


I'm just going to add that in a protest last week the yemeni military killed ~20 protestors with automatic weapons.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Maybe though they need this caliph to be recreated tough. They're all protesting over similar issues perhaps a common government with a common purpose would work out well in the middle east. Also, a unified defense force could prove to be very effective in counter terrorism efforts. Problem for us is that if they all band together Israel is screwed.. Then again israel was taken unfairly anyway and Jews arent the most understanding of people..



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


Back on topic, moving away from the Caliph.

This is not new news, Yemen has been known to be the location of a number of terrorist groups for some time, in 2009 for example America launched airstrikes against Al’Qa’ida targets, there have been numerous reports of Special Forces working in the country as well as drone activity. If it is next to go in the same way as say Libya or even Egypt, then we have a real problem with the presence of radical Islamic groups in the country.

Be careful as well what you are saying about France, France and Brittan probably could have implemented a no-fly zone over Libya without American assistance if need be. Americans often fall into the trap of assuming the Europe is dependent on America for defence, this is not true.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Yes but does France or England have the capacity to start such a conflict by themselves? No. They're simply too small theyd put themselves at far too much domestic risk while spending money that nobody has. They push some reliance on the us because even if we use similar sized funds on the no fly zone we still have a longer string of reserves available. Also, if a third party was opposed to the current situation in Lybia; France and England would be a much more realistic adversary than the us.

So even if they don't rely on us they still enjoy the assistance
edit on 22-3-2011 by minnow329 because: ...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Once again, Al Qaida is wave around as a reason for propping up a despot. Like it's supposed header organisation, "Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" is a made up bogeyman entity, and does not exist!

The people labeled by the US are nothing more than seperatists and pissed off Yemenis, tired of being trampled on by the US supported dictator. Of course, American public support probably (one would hope) wouldn't be there if they were told these people are trying to remove a brutal dictator.

It's the same tired and played out pattern every time these days. Label someone Al Qaida and use it as the excuse to kill them. No reasoning needed, no arrest, charges, trial where evidence has to be presented etc. just plain and simple murder to maintain policy.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


Enjoying the assistance is a far cry from being reliant. If there was justification, they can start a conflict if it is in their best interests without the assistance of America. America could not have started a conflict such as this on their own, Brittan, France and Lebanon were the instigators of this no fly zone as America sat back and pondered what to do the Europeans were working on a draft UN resolution. Now Obama within a few days is looking for a way out and does not want to be seen as heading up this international alliance, and that is what it is an international alliance, this is not a pet project of America’s like Iraq and Afghanistan was. The assumption that European defence is dependent of the actions of America is flawed.

I would remind you that combined Brittan and France represent the 4th and 5th largest military in terms of expenditure respectively and the largest in terms of military expenditure combined (bigger than America). Both are a nuclear power, Brittan does use American weapons but France is entirely independent and both hold seats on the UN Security council and are the biggest European players in NATO. Each have an advanced defence industry that supplies to America, they also have very sophisticated intelligence and Special forces capabilities and the most historically experienced military.

To assume Europe is dependent on America is only a testament to American arrogance and ignorance.

PS: its Brittan, not England.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


www.globalfirepower.com...

I suggest you all take a good, long look at that website and tell me that Europe doesn't enjoy the fact that the United States is watching out for them wherever we see fit.

France And England COMBINED would not equal HALF of the active military manpower of the United States. So when Russia (Also twice as large as England and France combined) is condoning our actions in Lybia, its a damn good thing that the United States is lending help.

Furthermore, each and every sector of military power follows the same trend. So as to sum this all up, without American help, England and France are left very, very vulnerable.

with your 3 aircraft carries combined and what not.

GOD BLESS AMERICUH!
edit on 22-3-2011 by minnow329 because: forgot to put down Europe some more.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


I was talking about expenditure which is generally what is used to determine the size of one state’s military, if you want to go with manpower then India and China trump America. Play with statistics all you want in terms of military expenditure Brittan and France spend more combined than America. It’s not a debate over who has a better military; the fact is Europe does not need America for defence. If America backed out of this right from the start it would still have been possible to enforce the no fly zone. True it would have cost us more, but it could have been done without leaving France and Brittan venerable.

Europe is a bigger superpower than America, as is China. The days of the America as the world’s sole superpower have come to an end. It’s only a matter of time before NATO is abolished and in its place a European defence alliance, without America is established and with that Americas military might will dwindle and Europe’s will grow exponentially.

And again ENGLAND IS NOT BRITTAN!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


actually, the us makes up 46% of the worlds military expenditure while england and france make up about 8%, in fact the US spends more then all of europe combined so get yer facts straight please. Also, Even all of Asia combined spends less then half of what the United States does, even though it is rising

and yeah china and India have big standing armies. that's really potent in the current age.

Also, my cousin works at fort dix in New Jersey doing weapons research, and i can assure you that the United States will remain on the forefront of military force and technology for quite some time. the days of standing armies are long gone. So you're right about military expenditure, which the United States is still very much on top of.

"The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $169 billion or 24% of the US military budget." - globalissues link


www.globalissues.org...

edit on 22-3-2011 by minnow329 because: wow!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by minnow329
 


Fair cop, I was looking at as a percentage of GDP, in which case Brittan and France to collectively spend more, but I will take your point.

However it does not matter because you but you cannot be as arrogant as to assume that without America the 4th and 5th largest military powers in the world cannot enforce a no fly zone without the help of America.

We have also gone way of topic, this is about Yemen not Libya.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


good argument buddy.


personally though, i would rather not be involved in any of these conflicts, in a year i turn 18, and the way things seem to be going here and the rest of the world, with more and more conflicts that we're obligated to enter, i wouldn't be surprised if i get drafted.





top topics
 
3

log in

join