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.
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.