Do You Think Obama Will Send Military Forces Into Yemen?

Obama has a history of unleashing the U.S. military forces against a nation based on "humanitarian reasons". In Libya, after Ghadaffi killed Libyan citizens, Obama sent our military might against him under the auspices of helping the Libyan citizens.

The same thing is now happening in Yemen. Yemini forces are killing unarmed protesters via snipers and mortar shells. Do you think Obama will send military forces into Yemen for "humanitarian reasons" to keep the innocent people from being slaughtered? Would you agree with such a decision or would you disagree? If you agree or disagree with sending forces in, your opinion is appreciated.

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Forces loyal to Yemen's newly returned president attacked pro-opposition troops with mortar shells and heavy gunfire Saturday and used rooftop snipers to pick off unarmed protesters fleeing in panic, killing more than 40 people and littering the streets of the capital with bodies.


One of the most powerful rivals to President Ali Abdullah Saleh — a senior general who threw his support and his troops behind the anti-regime uprising — warned that the president appears set on driving the country into civil war, calling on the international community to rein him in.


Saleh, who has clung to power despite nearly eight months of protests and an assassination attempt that left him severely burned, abruptly returned to Yemen on Friday after more than three months of treatment in Saudi Arabia for his wounds. Street battles that had reignited a week earlier in Sanaa rapidly escalated, signaling a possible full-fledged attempt to crush his rivals and tighten his grip on the country he has ruled for 33 years.


In a strongly worded statement, Maj. Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who commands the 1st Armored Division, called Saleh a "sick, vengeful soul" and compared him to the Roman emperor Nero, burning down his own city.
"With his return, Yemen is experiencing sweeping chaos, and the harbingers of a crushing civil war which this ignorant is determined to ignite," al-Ahmar said in the statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/yemeni-presidents-troops-kill-40-battles-150251523.html

 

Stay out of it and I hope my own Goverment stays out of it
I will say though that one action hardly constitutes a history

 

I guess it does when that's all one has. Other than the continuation of the Bush occupations of course.

 

More people are dying in Mexico by the day.
Mexico: 34,612 Drug War Deaths; 15,273 In 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/mexico-drug-war-deaths-2010_n_808277.html

Mexico drug wars have killed 35,000 people in four years http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/mexico-drug-deaths-figures-calderon

and that is not counting this year.

 

Agreed. Let's see what others have to say.

If you commit burglary one time or if you assault a police officer even one time, your rap sheet is going to say you have a history of those offenses. Otherwise, give me a number that you think constitutes a "history". Twice? Five times? Fourteen? Perhaps for your sensitivities I should have used the word "record" instead of "history".[/quote]

 

The situation in Yemen, while horrible, isn't as bad as the situaion was in Libya. The U.N. took action to prevent the mass murder of half the country, which isn't the same thing that's happening in Yemen.

 

So, if a country is killing it's own people, at what number do YOU draw the line and say "no more"?

 

For a suppose civil war, not that many people died in Libya if you don't count the NATO bombings. The NATO bombings didn't prevent any bloodshed either. Neither side really wanted to fight. It was run to the front line, let go some rounds, and then run back home for dinner thing until special advisor forces with hired ex-opts took the lead. You have more people being wasted in Mexico and no one cares.

 

When Nancy said: "Just say no!" ...it wasn't a request.

While the results of her insistance people stop using drugs are unfortunate, I will say I thoroughly enjoyed her initial anti-drug campaign's commercial on TV... where they show an egg and a frying pan (apparently, this is your brain). They crack the egg and put it into the hot frying pan (your brain on drugs). Priceless! So many people in L.A. got 'fried' watching that commercial that Denver experience a Rocky Mountain High when the smog rolled in.

 

You say "one" right? That would include just about every country in the World though. I sayyyy... (thinks of a random number)... when x=enough?

While I understand you're anti-violence/murder and all, I don't think whining about Obama specifically does any good. The blame should rightfully be spread around, but you focus on Obama as the only person responsible in the World. I think that's ridiculous.

 

No we should do nothing about it. And we probably won;t. Yemen's oil output is very small and declining. And it mostly goes to Asia.

 

To Coin:

I have to ask though: If you were the President of a powerful U.N.'s country, or the U.N. itself, what criteria would you use to make the decision to intervene? Would you intervene at all? Just let it happen? What would you have done in Libya? What about Yemen?

Anti-violence is a nice idea, but the World isn't so nice.

 

Would it have been ok for the British to attack and take out the North's ability to wage war when it attacked the South...say maybe to prevent the burning of Atlanta? Would it have been ok for Russia to attack our government's military when we had civil rights unrest, riots and other things going on in the 60ies/70ies? Would it be ok for China to attack our government if the economic crisis reaches riot/revolt stage in the near future?

The question is not 'when you would intervene in some other country's internal affairs?'...that is an easy one compared to 'when would you want the US to be intervened on in its internal affairs?'

 

Agreed. And is somewhat inferred to in the comment. And, America has deserved to be acted upon in the past, and has been (somewhat) by foreign countries. The former U.S.S.R, the current Russia, China, the U.K all have intervened in our country's internal affairs to a point, just not as much as we have in other countries.

My personal beliefs would involve us leaving several countries. By that I mean our military bases. They are everywhere and are continually sited as a reason for a lot of the violence we've seen towards us and our allies. The only bases I'd keep are friendly ones... leaving most in the Middle east abandoned/decommissioned.

I know that's different than what you're talking about (Libya and Yemen) so I'll touch on that a bit.

I support the decision by the U.S. and it's allies, and the U.N., to prevent the massacre that was inevitable if left unchallenged. IMO, Saddam was going to kill everyone who opposed him, a wholesale slaughter.

Now, there have been other wholesale slaughters in the recent history of Africa where we were less involved, or didn't intervene at all (Ruwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc). The U.N. has been involved on some level with all of them, but the U.S. itself has, for the most part, stayed out of it. Libya was a unique situation. IMO, it probably comes down to being more managable than the others, more preventable. Then the 'Arab Uprising' became a factor. It allowed the World to act for a segmant of Libya's population that may have been ignored otherwise.

In my view, it was a civil war... and we chose to side with the underdog, the rebels. I believe that overall, the action in Libya was just, and will stabilize the region a bit more than if Saddam was left unchecked ...once the dust settles. But yeah, it is interfering with another nation, and we wouldn't like that here either... unless those interfering are for my side o' things, then I'm all for it.

 

To answer the question in the OP:
BO will do anything if BO thinks it will help him get re-elected.

 

"The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the guise of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragmentof the socialist program"- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party presidential candidate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas
So what Thomas seemed to be saying is that the American people are fine with Socialism until they find out that it's Socialism. Kind of like a kid loving a new food until he's told that it's something he'd previously convinced himself that he wouldn't like. I don't know if I completely agree with Mr Thomas on this, but apparently you do, at least enough to use it as your signature.

 

I believe the quote speaks to the liberal tendency of disguising their socialist intent in some pretty little "feel good" package. I mean how often did you see or hear naive BO supporters speweing basic socialist ideology without even realizing it? Who wouldn't want free money, mortgage debt forgiveness, etc, right?

 

Obama 2012

...couldn't help myself... I'm more anti-capitalist myself...

 

I see. My comments stand.

 

How about this explanation: There's a sucker born every minute!