I did do more Googling, and i suggest you do the same. The US proxies control the oil fields after a decade of bombing. The "rebels" control the populated areas and they ARE popular. There are plenty of interviews you can find besides Clare and Mick that support this.
The Empire has religous nutjobs behind the corrupt ruling class and oli…
I did do more Googling, and i suggest you do the same. The US proxies control the oil fields after a decade of bombing. The "rebels" control the populated areas and they ARE popular. There are plenty of interviews you can find besides Clare and Mick that support this.
The Empire has religous nutjobs behind the corrupt ruling class and oligarchs. Yemen has FAR more history and complexity BUT this is what Google says FYI:
"Ansar Allah supports the establishment of a civil state in Yemen. We want to build a striving modern democracy. Our goals are to fulfil our people's democratic aspirations in keeping with the Arab Spring movement.
Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran, for "we cannot apply this system in Yemen because the followers of the Shafi (Sunni) doctrine are bigger in number than the Zaydis".
Come on man. Please don’t put any weight on what religious nutjobs say, especially when they’re clearly trying to appeal to Western sensibilities with words like “democracy,” “elections,” and “rights.” That kind of messaging is textbook propaganda.
The Houthis (Ansar Allah) have controlled significant parts of Yemen for nearly a decade. If they were serious about democracy, where are the elections? There’s no record of them holding any credible, internationally recognized elections since they took power. No process, no observers, no transparency—nothing resembling a functional democratic system.
So no, statements like “we want democracy, women in power, and a republic” are just marketing. If you've had the power and never even made a real move toward elections, it’s pretty clear where your priorities lie.
Please let’s not bring morality into this—morality is subjective. What felt righteous to the fuckers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre or Breivik likely wouldn’t match your moral compass. That alone shows how shaky the foundation is when trying to universalize ethics.
States don’t operate on morality. They act on interests, even when they dress those interests in moral language. The job of a state is to serve and protect its population. That’s the only framework I use to judge them.
Now about the U.S. bombings: I don’t believe they’re moral in any shape or form. But I don’t expect morality from states. A group with basic tech managed to cripple one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. If you're the top beneficiary of global trade and claim to uphold the world order, you can’t allow groups like the Houthis to normalize coercion against you. It’s not about Yemen—it’s about precedent.
Especially under someone like Trump (but this would apply to any administration), the U.S. can’t afford to negotiate here. From a Realpolitik perspective, negotiating would project weakness—something no superpower can afford when its hard power credibility is already stretched thin.
So yeah, unfortunately, I think things have only started. And it’s going to get a lot worse for the people of Yemen—not because anyone involved is seeking that outcome as a goal, but because geopolitical escalation rarely benefits the people stuck in between.
And like it or not, the Houthis put their population directly in the crosshairs—without delivering any tangible or even potential benefit for the people they claim to govern.
I did do more Googling, and i suggest you do the same. The US proxies control the oil fields after a decade of bombing. The "rebels" control the populated areas and they ARE popular. There are plenty of interviews you can find besides Clare and Mick that support this.
The Empire has religous nutjobs behind the corrupt ruling class and oligarchs. Yemen has FAR more history and complexity BUT this is what Google says FYI:
"Ansar Allah supports the establishment of a civil state in Yemen. We want to build a striving modern democracy. Our goals are to fulfil our people's democratic aspirations in keeping with the Arab Spring movement.
Houthis' preferable political system is a republic with elections where women can also hold political positions, and that they do not seek to form a cleric-led government after the model of Islamic Republic of Iran, for "we cannot apply this system in Yemen because the followers of the Shafi (Sunni) doctrine are bigger in number than the Zaydis".
Come on man. Please don’t put any weight on what religious nutjobs say, especially when they’re clearly trying to appeal to Western sensibilities with words like “democracy,” “elections,” and “rights.” That kind of messaging is textbook propaganda.
The Houthis (Ansar Allah) have controlled significant parts of Yemen for nearly a decade. If they were serious about democracy, where are the elections? There’s no record of them holding any credible, internationally recognized elections since they took power. No process, no observers, no transparency—nothing resembling a functional democratic system.
So no, statements like “we want democracy, women in power, and a republic” are just marketing. If you've had the power and never even made a real move toward elections, it’s pretty clear where your priorities lie.
Take everything they say with a boulder of salt.
Israel is a country of religious nut jobs.
Yes, I agree.
Let's say you're right that the leadership is disingenuous about their ambitions for the "nutjobs" they rule.
How does that justify the US bombs?
To support democracy, shouldn't the US help this majority of Yemenis overthrow the minority who control Yemen's oilfields?
If that minority are "the good guys", why hasn't a decade of US bombs helped?
Please let’s not bring morality into this—morality is subjective. What felt righteous to the fuckers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre or Breivik likely wouldn’t match your moral compass. That alone shows how shaky the foundation is when trying to universalize ethics.
States don’t operate on morality. They act on interests, even when they dress those interests in moral language. The job of a state is to serve and protect its population. That’s the only framework I use to judge them.
Now about the U.S. bombings: I don’t believe they’re moral in any shape or form. But I don’t expect morality from states. A group with basic tech managed to cripple one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. If you're the top beneficiary of global trade and claim to uphold the world order, you can’t allow groups like the Houthis to normalize coercion against you. It’s not about Yemen—it’s about precedent.
Especially under someone like Trump (but this would apply to any administration), the U.S. can’t afford to negotiate here. From a Realpolitik perspective, negotiating would project weakness—something no superpower can afford when its hard power credibility is already stretched thin.
So yeah, unfortunately, I think things have only started. And it’s going to get a lot worse for the people of Yemen—not because anyone involved is seeking that outcome as a goal, but because geopolitical escalation rarely benefits the people stuck in between.
And like it or not, the Houthis put their population directly in the crosshairs—without delivering any tangible or even potential benefit for the people they claim to govern.