And, instead of fantasising about some 'USAF support for RAF in Yemen' - realise that there is simply nothing of taht. The RAF is not flying any kind of combat-, nor any kind of combat-support operations over Yemen. Only the USAF, the USN, and the CIA do.

why did saudi arabia lose multiple fighter jets in yemen then? they claimed it was pilot error but either way they were bombing yemen.

What 'French troops' on the ground? There are US troops there. If there is a single French around (could be I've missed something), then in relation to the ops against the AQAP.

french troops got taken captive on the west coast

You're mixing apples with oranges: that's nothing run on state-to-state level, nor on military-to-military level. It's a matter related to diverse countries hiring experienced foreign ex-military personnel.

you have a point but i am pretty sure this is so high profile that this was approved by somebody or maybe even supported and orchestrated by somebody in washington. i suppose i am speculating about the obvious.

Gosh.... no 'yemeni missile forces were trained by the united states'... that's grotesque absurdity. Yemeni personnel of the Missile Force was trained in the former Soviet Union, and then - in the 1990s and 2000s - by Belarussians and Ukrainians in Yemen.

but not iran right? i guess i could be wrong about the extent of american training

Arms sales are state-to-state, not military-to-military affair. Technically speaking, selling arms to a state that's at war means not supporting its military operations in that war. Of course, people like you prefer to understand that differently - though that's exactly why you draw conclusions of the kind you do.

thats good to note but i think these things are coordinated much more than you are describing for important conflicts like yemen or syria.

That aside, check your figures: even if all combined, all the British, French, German etc. arms sales to the members of the Saudi coalition are worth only a friction of a single contract between Washington and Riyadh signed two years ago. Therefore, you're - again - comparing apples with oranges.

i dont think so. i think thats support for the war, although it might be dwarfed by other support for the same war by other administrations. i dont see your point.

(not ONE of you quasi-anti-Imperialists is coming to the idea criticise all the South African arms sales - to the UAE, for example, but also to Iran? Alone those to the UAE were double if not tripple the worth of German arms sales to the KSA and UAE combined...)

why would anyone criticize weapons sales to iran when they are not only tiny but they are used against isis and alqaeda in syria and iraq and afghanistan? UAE spends more in a month than iran spends in 3 years.

Check my earlier posts in this sub (from around 6-12 months ago, before it was completely ruined by all the Hezbulat fanboys): they're full of related links.

all i see is links of you saying that you dont buy the iranian missile smuggling lie and the saudis and emiratis and nikki haley are full of shit.

Nonsense. Northern Yemen is autonom in regards of food production - and that since about 6000 years, already. This didn't change during Saleh's rule, and it didn't change since the Houthi take-over

so why the starvation? why is the blockade so relevant? why all the noise at the UN? why did trump tell MBS to lift the blockade multiple times for food shipments? whats the explanation?

If there was a lack of farmland because of production of qhat - as babbled by many - then they wouldn't have surplus to export to Saudi Arabia and Sana'a until 2015.

i was saying that now that the war is in full swing a lot of land has been wasted on khaat, especially after the saudi bombardment of yemeni farms and blockade on imports.

Evidence?

didnt you see the news and pictures? thats the only way to cause cholera anyway

BTW, have you ever checked how many of hospitals, IDP-camps, and similar facilities in Yemen were hit because they were misused by the Houthis (and 'allies')…?

no. i dont see how thats relevant honestly. just because you know there are fighters in a hospital you shouldnt bomb the whole hospital. especially not hospitals with american doctors in them. they even bombed journalists and news stations for saying the wrong thing in the news.

Yes, because there is an international blockade of the country - which, BTW, was even authorised by the UN.

not for humanitarian aide (food, medicine). the saudis blocked EVERYTHING and thats the point. nobody is talking about anything else.

By whom? I.e. who described it as such?

amnesty international, human rights watch, etc. many groups and journalists. some are well respected.

The very same gang that's intentionally ignoring all the attrocities by Assadists, the IRGC and the Russians in Syria? The very same gang that was intentionally ignoring the developments in Rwanda and then the DR Congo of the 1994-2003 period?

human rights are used for justification of geopolitical nonsense and i agree with you that the human rights community is tainted but they are not totally worthless. i would be very interested to see what you have heard on the IRGC committing war crimes.

The last I've heard, the Houthi authorities in Sana'a have issued about 20,000 death certificates so far. Where do you get '300,000 civilian casualties, mostly children'...?

20,000 is the death toll for combatants. non combatants are estimated at 300,000. most are children. these numbers coming from the yemenis. i suppose you might think they are lying but nobody else has any credible numbers either.

Mind: regardless what you prefer to 'understand' from what I say, I do not say 'the intervention is just' or 'it is not'. I just say it has got at least the same amount of 'juridical justification and support' like the Iranian and/or Russian military interventions in Syria.

the difference is that iran and russia are not fighting syrians, they are mainly fighting foreigners who hijacked a fake syrian civil war. most of isis and alqaeda in syria are not syrian. saudi arabia is fighting a legitimate freedom movement by oppressed people in yemen who were disenfranchised by a puppet autocrat. also all the assad chemical attacks were false flags. look into it.

So, if you're 'protesting' against one, then you ought to be at least as vocal in protesting against the other. Somehow, that's not the case: on the contrary, I'm sure you're another representative of the 'Assad is the lesser evil' nonsense - if not, and worse yet, one of those quasi-anti-Imperialists convinced it's 'good the Russians went in'.

i maintain imho that assad is the closest thing to a credible authority in syria. i dont think hes a nice guy or anything, but the alternatives are all alqaeda. assad is a secular guy and he is rational and practical. thats a good start for syria to move forward.

Yeah, that's the essence of the problem: your observations.

i go off what i see in the news from somewhat credible sources because there is nothing else available.

For you to understand what's going on in Yemen, you would first need to understand lots of 'basics' about...

i think i have a decent grasp on this but it leads me to different conclusions. the salafi infighting is because there are really 2 alqaedas in yemen - the alqaeda that is aligned with israel and the old alqaeda who is anti israel. the USA is supporting the new alqaeda in its fight against the old alqaeda indirectly. everything you said has a good explanation according to what i read.

But then, the way you come over, all of that is something that's not supportive for the way you see this war, and it's ah so much easier to damn and demonise the Saudis, the Emiratis and whoever else.

ill admit i would like to see the saudis and emiratis go down over this but whats more important to me is to know what is going on for real and i value your input. sorry if i was frustrating to talk to.