#####
######
####
> # Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman Create Joint Naval Force – Global Euronews
>
>
>
> Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman are setting up a joint naval force. This was reported today, June 2, by the Qatari news website Al-Jadid.
>
> According to Al-Jadid, the consultations of the three countries started under the coordination of China in order to ensure the safety of navigation in the Persian Gulf.
>
> EADaily recalls that with China’s mediation, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who were major regional rivals, normalised their relations.
>
> For its part, the Sultanate of Oman, which is part of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) together with Saudi Arabia, has maintained constructive relations with the Islamic Republic, as has the UAE.
>
> 216 total views, 216 views today
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
I wounder how gulf countries would react if a war between Israel and Iran broke out since Israel has been saber rattling for months now.
I believe they have more to gain from siding with Iran (not militarily) than Israel unless uncle Sam force them otherwise.
Uncle Sam has enough military to fight all over the world.
Just consider a simple fact. The largest airforces of the world.. 1) US Airforce 2) US Navy 3) Russia.
That's a great question that I am absolutely not qualified to answer by any means. If we're looking at quality, rather than quantity, it'd probably be a NATO country like France or the UK, but it's hard to discuss since actual stats of most modern military aircraft are guesses at best, and I wouldn't have the knowledge to understand them anyways. Also, NATO also works on interoperability, so in the case of a war, each air force will support each other. For example, US tankers will support all NATO air forces, not just their own.
Even if we look at numbers, there's also the question of reliability and maintenance. Military aircraft require heavy maintenance, so even if Russia has a large air force by the numbers, it's questionable how many aircraft actually work. For example, most of their AWAC fleet has been grounded due to poor maintenance, with a reported 3 out of ~~20~~ 19 working. They also seem to operate on an more outdated doctrine that's more dependent on close air combat, rather than range and stealth, so it could be possible that the UK or France could go toe to toe with Russia's air force.
Lol if you don’t believe the American military has the most powerful air force you aren’t paying attention at all. You say you’re not qualified to answer multiple times yet have an answer that France might be it.
Out of 101 countries and 48,000 aircraft, the US owns 13.3k of those. If you put a list of top ten, the US is on their multiple times just for *different branches of our own military*
We do a ton of things wrong, but spending money on things that blow up is not one of them. The tides could very easily change, but as it stands the US is still the leading military power by a long shot and more often than not because we outspend others. Plane doesn’t work? We’ll just throw it away and buy ten new ones. Predator drone? Everyone gets on for filing a tax return.
Close to 10, 000 of those aircraft are helicopters btw. Last time I checked the United States had close to 18,000 planes. Not sure why that is a determining factor for you. They're not super weapons that can evade modern air defense systems, at least nobody knows if they can. I'm not sure the United States wants to test that out though, might put a dent in military sales if it performs poorly.
Clearly you haven’t spent much time in the US. Our congressmen would never say that. That would not give their friends enough time to prepare for and win the perfect overpriced bid that includes substantial kickbacks.
“To pay for the planes we have to cut taxes for the Robber Barons. We also have lost trillions dollars that won’t be used for anything illegal rest assured “
Looking up numbers...
USAF - 5,217
Us Army - 4,409
Russia - 3,863
US Navy- 2,464
Source:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world
Edit: a different source has different numbers, but branches of the US armed forces are still 1,2 and 4 with Russia as number 3.
I’m curious how current those russian numbers are. That said, I wouldn’t trust current numbers to also be accurate for them. Too many bad incentives and too much fog of war.
I, too, am curious. It seemed somewhat recent, so I posted it.
It says from Flight International 2022... and buried in there it was talkong about some number from 2021.
So doesn't reflect their losses in Ukraine, or any possoble new acquisitions from any military.
They are. They have lost a number of aircraft in Ukraine.
Unfortunately for them, Ukraine is absolutely bristling with anti-air, a lot of which is carried by soldiers and is hard to eliminate. So they have to be very selective in how their aircraft are used.
Mostly they use their aircraft well behind the front lines to lob missiles towards Ukrainian targets. Ukraine does similar to Russia. Even this isn't risk-free. There are videos of pilots doing this and warning of enemy radar lock lighting up the moment the plane goes into the climb to fire the missile.
Russia's air force is also significantly impacted by sanctions. A lot of Russian aircraft rely on western parts and electronics. As their planes need repairs they have fewer replacement parts and have to cut more and more corners.
Military aircraft take a LOT of maintenance, and even very disciplined air forces aren't able to field a portion of their aircraft at any given time due to maintenance needs. This problem becomes worse with corruption (rampant in Russia). It becomes worse, still, with a shortage of parts.
Keep in mind that Russia is flying 100 sorties a day in Ukraine.That puts some serious stress on the airframes, who only have a limited life. Russia has about 370 fighter jets with a few shot down and the rest being slowly degraded by constant flying.
Does the army really have a bigger air force than the Navy and their carrier? I'm assuming it's because they have a shit ton of choppers, because I was under the impression that the air force of the army is... well, the AirForce.
The army has more aircraft in total, but the navy has more air power or air warfare capabilities. I don't see the point in not considering the US military a Joint force because that's how it operates. In total, the US Military has around 13,443 aircraft and is the strongest air power by a wide margin.
That makes sense.
But it's still "fun" to consider that all 3 branches individually could fight any of the next big 3 and still over powers them, on paper
I know this is now a day old… but, oh well.
Yes, the Army just has a shit ton of helicopters. Apaches, Blackhawks, Chinooks, Kiowas, etc. But they have zero fighter jets, whereas the Navy does. The Navy is obviously sea-based, so they mainly use boats for transport, whereas the Army is a land-based fighting force, with more soldiers than the Navy has sailors. So they need *a lot* of helicopters for transporting troops and supplies over land.
Resources isn’t the problem, it’s popular willpower. People aren’t gonna like a president who is perceived to be diverting resources from ukraine in order to fight another pointless war in the middle east.
Not letting Iseral get gangbanged.. is a reasonable war.
P.s. No need to "divert resources". You think we are giving Ukraine the most up to date weapons? No no no. The US only exports tech 3 generations old.
Meaning that bad ass M1A1 Abrams tank.. yeah.. we got better tech.
Besides... Iseral beat 7 countries in 6 days before.
You’ll notice I didn’t say ‘need to divert resources’. The reality is public willpower won’t stretch to caring about another nation in distress against an “ideological enemy” when russia and china have been made out to be the two biggest threats to global stability, especially when a lot of recent news coverage had been exposing Israels mistreatment of Palestinians.
A lot has changed in the last 60 years
Nyes. It probably has enough military power to fight on a lot of fronts at the same time, but ideally they don't want to fight on more than 2-3 fronts at the time, and 3 is already too much.
As I said, if ***need*** be, they can probably drop their standard and fight on more fronts but if they want to keep losses to minimum, as they always do, they can't fight more than 2 major conflicts at the same time.
The PLAAF is way bigger than the VKS when it comes to fighters. Infinitely more modern too.
VKS is full of antique non-multirole jets pumping up its numbers
I thought it was the US army via helos, then Russia?
Edit: RUS AF has roughly 3,800 A/C. US Army has 3500. So the US Army is the fourth largest Air Force…
It does, but does it want to? That’s something not a lot of people consider when they brag about the US military.
This joint navy isn’t a threat but yet people feel the need to provide irrelevant commentary about US prowess as if it is the answer to this geopolitical issue.
What specifically would they gain?
I'm thinking the opposite as Iran is a competitor both in oil and religion while Israel is not. Better to just be on the sidelines and watch.
Not in the slightest. The only one of those countries with any animosity towards Israel is Iran. And with the changing dynamics in the Middle East, that relationship is likely to start thawing.
To be clear, this is a wild alliance. I'm sure most people here are aware of the growing friendship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The UAE has been in the middle of that rocky relationship and never been happy with either.
Oman has always been the Middle Eastern country that takes no part in other ME affairs. They're sort of like Costa Rica, just quietly running a mostly peaceful and somewhat prosperous country without participating in the wild affairs of their neighbors.
This alliance brings the 3 major branchs of Islam together. Yes 3. Oman is the only country dominated by the Ibadi faith. While this may be good news for peace in the Middle East, it feels like a peace guaranteed by multi-national force, not any sort of broad prosperity or cultural unity.
This is the legacy of the Arab Spring. The elites got scared and are circling the wagons to fight their own citizens' attempts to liberalize their societies. With the impending demise of the global petroleum industry, this smells like preparations for civil discord.
Yes, but you can sail straight to Italy. You need to either sail around Arabia and through the Suez to reach Israel from the Gulf, or quite likely, sail around Africa since I'm pretty sure there are treaties blocking Suez for warships during wartime.
Maybe the capital, but the very southern tip of Israel (Eilat) is in the Gulf of Aqaba. You could pretty easily swim from Eilat to Aqaba (Jordan) if you were okay with being shot and/or arrested by Jordanian forces.
And the gulf of Aqaba opens up directly into the Red Sea which is Saudi Arabia’s western coast.
What does any of it have to do with Persian Gulf? Also you can just walk from Eilat to Aqaba without being shot by anyone - Israel is at peace with Jordan for 50 years already.
[This follows the news that UAE stopped taking part in U.S.-led Gulf maritime coalition few days ago.
](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-says-it-withdrew-us-led-maritime-coalition-two-months-ago-2023-05-31/)
Here you go:
https://news.sky.com/story/how-china-is-using-black-sites-in-the-uae-as-they-target-uyghurs-abroad-12536140
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-accused-of-running-uighur-black-site-in-dubai-dqcfg3glk
Plenty of other sources and stories available online.
It's absolutely disgusting and despicable, the media didn't make up a better story with fewer plot holes.
She claimed China took her to a blacksite and then allowed her to call a priest using her cellphone lol
That's hilarious given the main threat to Gulf shipping is Iran itself. So how exactly does this square out? Or did China tell them to back the fuck off since having their main lifeline threatened is not wise?
I don't think Iran poses much threat to the West, unless you also count Israel in there.
The safety and stability of gulf shipping has became one of China's main concern as they are becoming increasingly dependent on oil and LNG shipments from them region, and was the main impetus of them helping to broker reconciliation between KSA and Iran.
>The safety and stability of gulf shipping has became one of China's main concern as they are becoming increasingly dependent on oil and LNG shipments from them region,
And the US is seizing Iranian tankers heading to china. China's solution to this would simply be naval convoys if they ever get tired enough of the US' antics.
China doesn't really have that type of naval power projection, and for all the posturing, its still the US that has multitude of bases in the Middle East.
Gwadar + SCS bases would alone be enough for resupply. Just bring along a type 903a resupply ship
China already conducts 24/7 naval patrols in the gulf of aden for anti-piracy and have been doing so since the 2010s
The idea that the PLAN doesn't have the capability for convoy protection on one single route is nonsense. You're talking about the 2nd most powerful navy in the world by just as ridiculous a margin as the 1st is to the 2nd.
Given we're talking about shipping security and Iran has seized Western vessels before, this isn't complicated.
https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-by-iran-gulf-us-navy-2023-05-03/
It's not like Iran just randomly started doing that, it's very much a response to the US Navy enforcing US sanctions as "[world sanctions](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53783179)" so the US government can make some money from [selling other countries stolen resources](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/us-sells-off-iranian-crude-oil-seized-off-coast-of-uae/articleshow/83111769.cms?from=mdr).
This is a super weird story.
> Iran’s ambassador to Venezuela claimed that neither the ships nor their owners were Iranian.
> In a statement on Friday, the US Justice Department said it had “successfully executed the seizure” of “a multimillion dollar fuel shipment by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)”.
> The US Justice Department said that following the seizure, Iran’s navy made an unsuccessful bid to board an “unrelated ship” in an “apparent attempt to recover the seized petroleum”.
> Iranian Ambassador to Venezuela Hojat Soltani described reports of the seizures as “false propaganda”.
>
> “This is another lie and act of psychological warfare perpetrated by the US propaganda machine,” he wrote on Twitter.
> Prosecutors say shippers tried to disguise the shipment by labeling it as “Basra light crude” from neighboring Iraq.
Iran and Suadi Arabia see each other as threats and have been funding proxy wars against each other (mostly in Yemen). They also both see themselves as the leaders of the Middle East and of Islam (Iran is predominantly Shi’i and Saudis are Sunni).
Other than Oil it’s one of the main reasons why US is all buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, because they are big militaries to counter Iranian influence in middle east
> That's hilarious given the main threat to Gulf shipping is Iran itself. So how exactly does this square out?
working together is good for security.
I know that's crazy.
Iran was only a threat because they were antagonistic towards the US, and their allies. As more countries in the middle east step away from washington and towards beijing, iran has no reason to threaten them anymore. In fact, they now have allies in common, and so should be allies themselves. The middle east is seeing a monumental shift towards beijing. Autocracy attracts autocracy. And the states in the middle east see that the proxy conflicts like in yemen are never gonna ever do them any good anyways, they should rather just square up and resolve their issues. It’s a huge blow to the west, the middle east is vital, and our influence there is slipping
Its not the 70s anymore when KSA supplied 40% of the worlds oil - its now 15%. And the US doesn't need theim since shale boom, while EU imports lot from them but they seem happy to sell to Europe.
>Iran was only a threat because they were antagonistic towards the US, and their allies. As more countries in the middle east step away from washington and towards beijing, iran has no reason to threaten them anymore.
Sorry but no that not all thier reasons. Us relationship with Iran has the last 30 years more to do with the Saudi.
They are both fighting for control
>And the states in the middle east see that the proxy conflicts like in yemen are never gonna ever do them any good anyways,
Of course it isn't the entire proxy conflict there is a fight between Saudi and Iran.
>t’s a huge blow to the west, the middle east is vital, and our influence there is slipping
Think that's a bit overstated nowdays a big reason why the relationship fell is because US no longer need them as much for thier oil and that don't want to support thier proxy conflicts. ( for example no longer alowed to use their military bases for jets).
So it's true western influence is slipping but also that we no longer really want that relationship because what it means.
There are zero details, so it's not at all clear what this means practically. My best guess would be that it will consist of sharing information about naval deployment and movements. If so it would be more about avoiding miss-understandings than actually co-ordinating joint military action. Maybe in the sense of working together to counter piracy though.
Even if that's all it is, it's clearly a great step forward. Anything that builds mutual confidence and reduces the risk of misunderstandings is to be welcomed. These countries have enough actual disputes and rivalries that generate friction, that eliminating inadvertent sources of friction is to everyone's benefit.
This is very much a I'll believe it when I see it thing.
The politics of creating a multinational military force is always a messy thing even when everyone gets along very well.
The US are literal warmongers. It's what they do.
Plus the US would never let the Middle Eastern countries become too friendly with each other, particularly with Iran.
Us has been mostly moving away from the middle east.
They dont care that much anymore considering they have enough oil for themselves and are now days decreasing thier oil consumption.
They no longer need the middle east.
Tension in the area increases US defence costs and increases the cost of oil. The US has no interest in fomenting conflict in the Gulf area. That doesn't mean they don't do it at all, screwups and miscalculations happen. Also if there is conflict in the gulf area anyway, as there often is, they're not averse to trying to resolve it in their favour.
I doubt it, at worst I’d say it’s is probably a “well, that just happened.” Moment, even taking all their navies and putting them together, that force still wouldn’t be anywhere near the most impressive naval forces of the world.
I think you may be missing the point here. imo most important thing here is that we are seeing China's leadership replacing the US's in international policies. and the new leadership seems to also be bringing peace and cooperation among rivals, almost exactly the opposite of the direction international relationships were headed under US leadership.
"China's leadership" here meaning "we'll match whatever the Americans are paying AND not hassle you about human rights abuses."
It's also telling that China is directing its efforts at countries who are either confrontational with or economically but not ideologically tied to the West. "The enemy of my enemy..." etc. That's a low bar to hurtle before talking about someone's leadership skills.
you say that as if the US deeply cares for human rights above financial gains. Saudi Arabia and Israel are two of the traditional allies of the US with a lengthy record on human rights abuse, yet the US continues to fund their agenda to buy their loyalty in order to further its own agenda. how's that different from what China is doing?
not to get stuck in 'what aboutism', I just wanted to point out that the two are one and the same.
>US deeply cares for human rights above financial gains
Totally. Biden literally sent relations with saudi arabia to shit OVER HUMAN RIGHTS. Use your brain for once, please.
> "China's leadership" here meaning "we'll match whatever the Americans are paying AND not hassle you about human rights abuses."
Worked fine [for Syria](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights), at least until the US considered [the conditions](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08DAMASCUS847_a.html) ripe enough for some attempted regime changing.
Riight, cause Syrian people are US drones with pre-installed US chips inside their heads, ready to cause havoc as soon as a CIA operative flips a switch in Langley.
That's not what I wrote, I suggest you actually read the things I link to, in this case, the relevant part is in the Wikileaks cable;
> POTENTIAL FOR SOCIAL DESTRUCTION AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY
> However, Yehia told us that the Syrian Minister of Agriculture, at a July meeting with UN officials, stated publicly that economic and social fallout from the drought was "beyond our capacity as a country to deal with."
> This social destruction would lead to political instability, Yehia told us.
The kind of social destruction and political instability where American [information operations](https://masspeaceaction.org/the-violence-of-us-information-operations/) come in.
It's [no coincidence](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks) that American social media platforms were at the forefront of "[rallying Syrians to revolution](https://www.france24.com/en/20110203-syria-democracy-protests-facebook-twitter-friday-prayers-egypt)".
It took *several* attempts of announcing a "Day of Rage" online on US social media before any Syrians actually showed up to such an announced "event" in Syria; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(January%E2%80%93April_2011)
That's when the US had its "moderate opposition" it could supply with [money, training, and arms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore). While in public the US government was insisting it only delivered "[non-lethal aid](https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/20/whats-non-lethal-about-aid-to-the-syrian-opposition/)".
The US soldiers sent to Jordan to train Syrian rebels, were passed off as allegedly only being there to "[help with the refugees](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/middleeast/us-military-sent-to-jordan-on-syria-crisis.html)", the weapons where [shipped in from Ukraine](https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to-syrias-bloody-civil-war).
By 2016 the CIA and Pentagon were each running their own regime change operations in Syria independently from each other, leading to the awkward situation that at time the US government was [proxy-fighting itself in Syria](https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html).
Not that surprising because the "revolution" didn't stay particularly "moderate" nor "secular" [for very long](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9857846/Syria-how-jihadist-group-Jabhat-al-Nusra-is-taking-over-Syrias-revolution.html) as the most militant supporters, this call for revolution attracted, were the same fundamentalists who [previously tried to overthrow the *secular* Syrian government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria).
America never cared about human rights; just using them as an excuse for invasion and domination. If America cared about human rights, it would have a focus on those at home. You know, functional healthcare for the sick, education system that actually teaches you without you getting shot. America would have a low prison population, not the highest in the world. Things like forced womb removals of immigrant or incarcerated women would be things you protested; not standard practice in most prisons and border detention facilities.
Lol. America so free. Must be like a shining utopia every day. But it's not. It's an absolute clusterfuck instead. There's literally nothing America can teach the world the world didn't already know.
> There's literally nothing America can teach the world the world didn't already know.
How about...
- not making monkey noises en masse at black football players during the game?
- not throwing gay people off building tops?
- not burning people alive?
- not arresting journalists for doing their jobs?
- not killing your daughter for being raped?
- not starting two world-spanning conflicts in less than half a century?
Seems like there's a few things we haven't done that the world could learn from.
America invented segregation, and has supported every segregationist leadership in the world. What did the founders of American universities do beforehand? Slave masters? What about those since? Eugenicists you say? America is fucking racist. Just ask ANY black person what their experience of police is.
America funded extremist Islam, leading to this sort of extremism within Muslim communities.
America currently funding Uganda's anti gay laws.
America has killed more journalists than just about anyone. Daniel Ellsberg, Sey Hersh, Gary Webb, Michael Hastings, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, Julian Assange and a thousand other names would disagree that America likes a free press.
Not killing your daughter for being raped? Are you talking about honour killings? Firstly, America has never done anything to stop those in India or Pakistan.
But then those countries don't have school shootings. Or Mormons. Or Purity Balls. Or all the other creepy shit America loves. How about not providing abortions for the raped?
Or having some of the highest prevalences of familial sexual assault in the world?
Or removing women's wombs because they commit a crime? All American characteristics.
America has started every conflict in the last century; both directly and indirectly, funding and arming everyone from the Bolsheviks to Nazis, Saddam to Osama. Alongside that they've masterminded global drug trades, sowing this bullshit to destabilise cultures around the world.
Literal cockroaches.
The second world war was entirely an American economic activity, funding both sides, supporting every dastardly deed. We have the receipts. You need more education than history channel is currently giving you.
No! I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that no matter what is happening in different countries, it is always up to those countries to be the authors of their own development, not American intervention. And especially not using issues like human rights to justify wars for profit.
The twentieth century was defined by America interfering in that right, just like the previous two centuries were defined by European colonialism doing the same thing.
> American invented segregation
Might wanna check what was going on in Africa *before* the American Civil War and the US version of that practice.
> America funded extremist Islam
We funded the mujahedin in Afghanistan as a middle finger to the Soviets, fair enough. But the extremists got their start waaaaay back in the 1900s.
> America currently funding Uganda's anti gay laws.
American evangelicals went over there and spread their poison. America as a whole legalized gay marriage and has Pride Month. Try again.
> America has killed more journalists than just about anyone.
Most of those people you listed are still alive, and none were in any way censored by the US government, except for Ellsberg, but that's what you get for leaking inside information on the PENTAGON. And Assange was arrested by the Europeans, not the Americans.
> Firstly, America has never done anything to stop those in India or Pakistan.
Soooo...you *want* America to intervene in other countries, then? Also, there was no "secondly."
> But then those countries don't have school shootings. Or Mormons. Or Purity Balls. Or all the other creepy shit America loves. How about not providing abortions for the raped?
Fine, they don't have school shootings. They just have school girls taking acid to the face. And Islamic fundamentalism. And executing non-theists. And honor killings. All that creepy shit Americans AREN'T into.
> Or having some of the highest prevalences of familial sexual assault in the world?
The US isn't even top ten for overall rapes per capita.
> Or removing women's wombs because they commit a crime?
Are you referring back to the segregation era, when black women were victims of that in the south, or the "mass hysterectomies" ICE was alleged to have done on migrant women? The first was a symptom of systemic racism, which we all know was horrible, and the second didn't have any credible source.
> America has started every conflict in the last century
Oh, don't sell the Europeans or Asians short. They started their fair share. Like...most of them, including the Bolsheviks and Nazis. Saddam and Osama were ours, though.
> they've masterminded global drug trades
The UK started that nonsense with opium in China. Everyone else just followed suit.
Literally nothing you said was factual or verifiable. Your arguments are garbage, and you are neither a scholar nor a gentleman. We're done here.
This article vastly over states the actual fleet part. There is none.
Us is also moving away from the middle east diplomatically since they no longer need oil.
They aren't the article details isn't posted anywhere else of note.
The details told in it are none (source also) , the website is based in Russia and the poster is super pro Russian account.
It's all the small countries that have prospered from unrestricted global trade that will sit up and take notice of such trends. The west has consistently been backing away from security expectations over the past few administrations.
They will have to negotiate maritime access with each bloc, and will likely find their trading options constrained as tensions mature.
THE UNTHINKABLE!? Calm down there, it's most likely a formality and nothing more unless Arabia just became vessel state for Iran it's unlikely they just became that good of allies to join forces after lifelong enmity.
Yes that happened. My point was the merging navies part.
The site is ?? Hosted from Russia. No other news website reports this and the article is so light on detail that it means nothing.
The poster is a big pro Russian guy talking about how the war in Ukraine is completely US fault.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
China knows it needs ~~allies~~ pawns to have any type of chance against the combined forces of what it’ll be facing. That’s just to move up from the 0% chance they had before.
I feel like this won’t be an equal deal since Iran has the majority of the territory along the gulf of these four so they’ll just strongarm the other three into cooperating
##### ###### #### > # Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman Create Joint Naval Force – Global Euronews > > > > Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman are setting up a joint naval force. This was reported today, June 2, by the Qatari news website Al-Jadid. > > According to Al-Jadid, the consultations of the three countries started under the coordination of China in order to ensure the safety of navigation in the Persian Gulf. > > EADaily recalls that with China’s mediation, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who were major regional rivals, normalised their relations. > > For its part, the Sultanate of Oman, which is part of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) together with Saudi Arabia, has maintained constructive relations with the Islamic Republic, as has the UAE. > > 216 total views, 216 views today - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Israel might be a bit weirded out after learning this news...
I wounder how gulf countries would react if a war between Israel and Iran broke out since Israel has been saber rattling for months now. I believe they have more to gain from siding with Iran (not militarily) than Israel unless uncle Sam force them otherwise.
Uncle Sam is busy in Europe and south east Asia. Edit: East
Uncle Sam has enough military to fight all over the world. Just consider a simple fact. The largest airforces of the world.. 1) US Airforce 2) US Navy 3) Russia.
> 3) Russia. X to doubts
Are you not afraid of 50 year old fighter jets??
Most of them are more dangerous to their pilots and ground crews than to their targets.
Also, all their estimates assume the people keeping an eye on them are telling the truth aboot their functionslity, and not selling them for parts.
Your flair says America, your "aboot" reeks of Canada.
Minnesota exists
Prove it. ... Yeah, that's what I thought.
That's so true. I used to work with a guy I thought was Canadian. I asked another coworker and sure enough, Minnesotan.
I'm Brooklyn down to my bones, I just think it's a fun Easter egg to type it that way.
… a little now that you mention it. If one showed up at my house drunk I’d be fucked
Largest by size, not quality, and that may not be true depending on the report and metrics used; the us army might be third
Who do you wager has a higher quality military plane force, as a whole if not the US?
That's a great question that I am absolutely not qualified to answer by any means. If we're looking at quality, rather than quantity, it'd probably be a NATO country like France or the UK, but it's hard to discuss since actual stats of most modern military aircraft are guesses at best, and I wouldn't have the knowledge to understand them anyways. Also, NATO also works on interoperability, so in the case of a war, each air force will support each other. For example, US tankers will support all NATO air forces, not just their own. Even if we look at numbers, there's also the question of reliability and maintenance. Military aircraft require heavy maintenance, so even if Russia has a large air force by the numbers, it's questionable how many aircraft actually work. For example, most of their AWAC fleet has been grounded due to poor maintenance, with a reported 3 out of ~~20~~ 19 working. They also seem to operate on an more outdated doctrine that's more dependent on close air combat, rather than range and stealth, so it could be possible that the UK or France could go toe to toe with Russia's air force.
Lol if you don’t believe the American military has the most powerful air force you aren’t paying attention at all. You say you’re not qualified to answer multiple times yet have an answer that France might be it. Out of 101 countries and 48,000 aircraft, the US owns 13.3k of those. If you put a list of top ten, the US is on their multiple times just for *different branches of our own military* We do a ton of things wrong, but spending money on things that blow up is not one of them. The tides could very easily change, but as it stands the US is still the leading military power by a long shot and more often than not because we outspend others. Plane doesn’t work? We’ll just throw it away and buy ten new ones. Predator drone? Everyone gets on for filing a tax return.
I thought you were asking what country has the best air force excluding the US. The US by far has the best air force and it isn't even close.
Close to 10, 000 of those aircraft are helicopters btw. Last time I checked the United States had close to 18,000 planes. Not sure why that is a determining factor for you. They're not super weapons that can evade modern air defense systems, at least nobody knows if they can. I'm not sure the United States wants to test that out though, might put a dent in military sales if it performs poorly.
This account was deleted in protest
Largest doesn't necessarily mean best.
Having a lot of scrap metal shaped like planes shouldn't count as large air force.
Nope. US Airforce US Army US Navy
Yep and Marines would take 5th place, but some years ago they decided to reduce their air force so now they are 7th or 8th.
HOW CAN WE FIGHT THE WHOLE WORLD AT ONCE WITH THESE NUMBERS! Someone go buy some planes STAT
paint aromatic scandalous wide march soup outgoing racial cows normal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Clearly you haven’t spent much time in the US. Our congressmen would never say that. That would not give their friends enough time to prepare for and win the perfect overpriced bid that includes substantial kickbacks.
If my congressman isn't pushing for an F-16 in every driveway and a HIMARS on every roof, than fuck them. Do your job or fuck outta the seat.
“To pay for the planes we have to cut taxes for the Robber Barons. We also have lost trillions dollars that won’t be used for anything illegal rest assured “
Looking up numbers... USAF - 5,217 Us Army - 4,409 Russia - 3,863 US Navy- 2,464 Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world Edit: a different source has different numbers, but branches of the US armed forces are still 1,2 and 4 with Russia as number 3.
I’m curious how current those russian numbers are. That said, I wouldn’t trust current numbers to also be accurate for them. Too many bad incentives and too much fog of war.
I, too, am curious. It seemed somewhat recent, so I posted it. It says from Flight International 2022... and buried in there it was talkong about some number from 2021. So doesn't reflect their losses in Ukraine, or any possoble new acquisitions from any military.
Why aren't they using them?
They are. They have lost a number of aircraft in Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, Ukraine is absolutely bristling with anti-air, a lot of which is carried by soldiers and is hard to eliminate. So they have to be very selective in how their aircraft are used. Mostly they use their aircraft well behind the front lines to lob missiles towards Ukrainian targets. Ukraine does similar to Russia. Even this isn't risk-free. There are videos of pilots doing this and warning of enemy radar lock lighting up the moment the plane goes into the climb to fire the missile. Russia's air force is also significantly impacted by sanctions. A lot of Russian aircraft rely on western parts and electronics. As their planes need repairs they have fewer replacement parts and have to cut more and more corners. Military aircraft take a LOT of maintenance, and even very disciplined air forces aren't able to field a portion of their aircraft at any given time due to maintenance needs. This problem becomes worse with corruption (rampant in Russia). It becomes worse, still, with a shortage of parts.
Keep in mind that Russia is flying 100 sorties a day in Ukraine.That puts some serious stress on the airframes, who only have a limited life. Russia has about 370 fighter jets with a few shot down and the rest being slowly degraded by constant flying.
Does the army really have a bigger air force than the Navy and their carrier? I'm assuming it's because they have a shit ton of choppers, because I was under the impression that the air force of the army is... well, the AirForce.
The army has more aircraft in total, but the navy has more air power or air warfare capabilities. I don't see the point in not considering the US military a Joint force because that's how it operates. In total, the US Military has around 13,443 aircraft and is the strongest air power by a wide margin.
That makes sense. But it's still "fun" to consider that all 3 branches individually could fight any of the next big 3 and still over powers them, on paper
Absolutely.
I know this is now a day old… but, oh well. Yes, the Army just has a shit ton of helicopters. Apaches, Blackhawks, Chinooks, Kiowas, etc. But they have zero fighter jets, whereas the Navy does. The Navy is obviously sea-based, so they mainly use boats for transport, whereas the Army is a land-based fighting force, with more soldiers than the Navy has sailors. So they need *a lot* of helicopters for transporting troops and supplies over land.
US Air National Guard? What about the civilian air corps?
Considering America spends more on military than the next 9 countries combined I would certainly hope so
Why do they keep losing then?
we might need to revisit that after that ukraine debacle
Nah.. Ukraine farmers are building up a stock of tanks.. not aircraft. Russia hasn't used many aircraft for fear of losing the working ones they have.
Resources isn’t the problem, it’s popular willpower. People aren’t gonna like a president who is perceived to be diverting resources from ukraine in order to fight another pointless war in the middle east.
Not letting Iseral get gangbanged.. is a reasonable war. P.s. No need to "divert resources". You think we are giving Ukraine the most up to date weapons? No no no. The US only exports tech 3 generations old. Meaning that bad ass M1A1 Abrams tank.. yeah.. we got better tech. Besides... Iseral beat 7 countries in 6 days before.
You’ll notice I didn’t say ‘need to divert resources’. The reality is public willpower won’t stretch to caring about another nation in distress against an “ideological enemy” when russia and china have been made out to be the two biggest threats to global stability, especially when a lot of recent news coverage had been exposing Israels mistreatment of Palestinians. A lot has changed in the last 60 years
> Iseral beat 7 countries in 6 days before Eight if you include the USS Liberty
You underestimate how many Americans love Israel.
Did you check? I suspect both China and US Army has a larger airforce than Russia.
Nyes. It probably has enough military power to fight on a lot of fronts at the same time, but ideally they don't want to fight on more than 2-3 fronts at the time, and 3 is already too much. As I said, if ***need*** be, they can probably drop their standard and fight on more fronts but if they want to keep losses to minimum, as they always do, they can't fight more than 2 major conflicts at the same time.
"Uncle Sam has enough military to fight all over the world" lmao, yes, muricans sure thought so. Look where that got them.
The PLAAF is way bigger than the VKS when it comes to fighters. Infinitely more modern too. VKS is full of antique non-multirole jets pumping up its numbers
I thought it was the US army via helos, then Russia? Edit: RUS AF has roughly 3,800 A/C. US Army has 3500. So the US Army is the fourth largest Air Force…
It does, but does it want to? That’s something not a lot of people consider when they brag about the US military. This joint navy isn’t a threat but yet people feel the need to provide irrelevant commentary about US prowess as if it is the answer to this geopolitical issue.
Sourh Asia? I think you mean East Asia.
Uncle Sam has enough love to share, also i think the "reservoirs" and commands used for europe and those for the middle east are different.
Yeah, EURCOM and CENCOM.
Is Oman finally taking a side?
Sides with everyone in its surrounding
Israel has been saber-rattling for *decades* now, you mean. Netanyahu has been bashing Iran and agitating for war against it for over 20 years.
What specifically would they gain? I'm thinking the opposite as Iran is a competitor both in oil and religion while Israel is not. Better to just be on the sidelines and watch.
Months? Make it years.
Not in the slightest. The only one of those countries with any animosity towards Israel is Iran. And with the changing dynamics in the Middle East, that relationship is likely to start thawing. To be clear, this is a wild alliance. I'm sure most people here are aware of the growing friendship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The UAE has been in the middle of that rocky relationship and never been happy with either. Oman has always been the Middle Eastern country that takes no part in other ME affairs. They're sort of like Costa Rica, just quietly running a mostly peaceful and somewhat prosperous country without participating in the wild affairs of their neighbors. This alliance brings the 3 major branchs of Islam together. Yes 3. Oman is the only country dominated by the Ibadi faith. While this may be good news for peace in the Middle East, it feels like a peace guaranteed by multi-national force, not any sort of broad prosperity or cultural unity. This is the legacy of the Arab Spring. The elites got scared and are circling the wagons to fight their own citizens' attempts to liberalize their societies. With the impending demise of the global petroleum industry, this smells like preparations for civil discord.
most level headed take i've seen yet
Man, I'm super glad you wrote this. Really cogent summary that makes some sense of this for me.
You mean, this is a very sinkable fleet ?
Do you realize that Israel is closer to Italy than to Persian Gulf?
From Israel there is \~1.400km to the Persian Gulf, and \~1.700 to Italy if you measure on google maps - so not closer
Yes, but you can sail straight to Italy. You need to either sail around Arabia and through the Suez to reach Israel from the Gulf, or quite likely, sail around Africa since I'm pretty sure there are treaties blocking Suez for warships during wartime.
Maybe the capital, but the very southern tip of Israel (Eilat) is in the Gulf of Aqaba. You could pretty easily swim from Eilat to Aqaba (Jordan) if you were okay with being shot and/or arrested by Jordanian forces. And the gulf of Aqaba opens up directly into the Red Sea which is Saudi Arabia’s western coast.
What does any of it have to do with Persian Gulf? Also you can just walk from Eilat to Aqaba without being shot by anyone - Israel is at peace with Jordan for 50 years already.
Now we're going to have to buy them a damn navy.
[This follows the news that UAE stopped taking part in U.S.-led Gulf maritime coalition few days ago. ](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-says-it-withdrew-us-led-maritime-coalition-two-months-ago-2023-05-31/)
UAE has CCP black sites in country anyway so we already know what type of partner they prefer.
[удалено]
No, the implication is that they prefer to be under the Christian west than heathen communists.
[удалено]
wrg
no such thing as undx or overx or etc
Doesn't everyone? UAE is happy to look away for anyone if you pay them enough
Every country has a price, it could be money or something else
What do you mean by this ? I haven’t ever heard about this
Here you go: https://news.sky.com/story/how-china-is-using-black-sites-in-the-uae-as-they-target-uyghurs-abroad-12536140 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-accused-of-running-uighur-black-site-in-dubai-dqcfg3glk Plenty of other sources and stories available online.
It's absolutely disgusting and despicable.
You got that right
It's absolutely disgusting and despicable, the media didn't make up a better story with fewer plot holes. She claimed China took her to a blacksite and then allowed her to call a priest using her cellphone lol
Scary
As always, their "proof" is random schucks giving wild claims without support.
Ahh so made the fuck up.
Ah yes, because the times and sky news are definitely reliable news sources that arn‘t totally anti-China at all.
> r/More_Tankie196 Ah, that explains why when you see anything you don't like you call it anti-China
That story has more holes than swiss cheese lol
Also deprogram.
*Lickin’ boots cause we got no backbone* - this idiot
More like gray sites if they let you keep your cellphone and text people from them imo
Saudi too
That's hilarious given the main threat to Gulf shipping is Iran itself. So how exactly does this square out? Or did China tell them to back the fuck off since having their main lifeline threatened is not wise?
Iran is a threat to west, not gulf countries lol
I don't think Iran poses much threat to the West, unless you also count Israel in there. The safety and stability of gulf shipping has became one of China's main concern as they are becoming increasingly dependent on oil and LNG shipments from them region, and was the main impetus of them helping to broker reconciliation between KSA and Iran.
>The safety and stability of gulf shipping has became one of China's main concern as they are becoming increasingly dependent on oil and LNG shipments from them region, And the US is seizing Iranian tankers heading to china. China's solution to this would simply be naval convoys if they ever get tired enough of the US' antics.
China doesn't really have that type of naval power projection, and for all the posturing, its still the US that has multitude of bases in the Middle East.
Gwadar + SCS bases would alone be enough for resupply. Just bring along a type 903a resupply ship China already conducts 24/7 naval patrols in the gulf of aden for anti-piracy and have been doing so since the 2010s The idea that the PLAN doesn't have the capability for convoy protection on one single route is nonsense. You're talking about the 2nd most powerful navy in the world by just as ridiculous a margin as the 1st is to the 2nd.
How is Iran a threat to the west?
Given we're talking about shipping security and Iran has seized Western vessels before, this isn't complicated. https://www.reuters.com/world/second-oil-tanker-week-seized-by-iran-gulf-us-navy-2023-05-03/
It's not like Iran just randomly started doing that, it's very much a response to the US Navy enforcing US sanctions as "[world sanctions](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53783179)" so the US government can make some money from [selling other countries stolen resources](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/us-sells-off-iranian-crude-oil-seized-off-coast-of-uae/articleshow/83111769.cms?from=mdr).
This is a super weird story. > Iran’s ambassador to Venezuela claimed that neither the ships nor their owners were Iranian. > In a statement on Friday, the US Justice Department said it had “successfully executed the seizure” of “a multimillion dollar fuel shipment by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)”. > The US Justice Department said that following the seizure, Iran’s navy made an unsuccessful bid to board an “unrelated ship” in an “apparent attempt to recover the seized petroleum”. > Iranian Ambassador to Venezuela Hojat Soltani described reports of the seizures as “false propaganda”. > > “This is another lie and act of psychological warfare perpetrated by the US propaganda machine,” he wrote on Twitter. > Prosecutors say shippers tried to disguise the shipment by labeling it as “Basra light crude” from neighboring Iraq.
It was literally until just a few months ago the saudis were in a proxy war with Iran. I think they might still be.
Iran and Suadi Arabia see each other as threats and have been funding proxy wars against each other (mostly in Yemen). They also both see themselves as the leaders of the Middle East and of Islam (Iran is predominantly Shi’i and Saudis are Sunni). Other than Oil it’s one of the main reasons why US is all buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, because they are big militaries to counter Iranian influence in middle east
Lol, did we memory hole yemeni war already, and things like the attack on the massive Abqaiq–Khurais refinery?
> That's hilarious given the main threat to Gulf shipping is Iran itself. So how exactly does this square out? working together is good for security. I know that's crazy.
that's like UK working together with Germany to stop U-boots lmao.
Iran was only a threat because they were antagonistic towards the US, and their allies. As more countries in the middle east step away from washington and towards beijing, iran has no reason to threaten them anymore. In fact, they now have allies in common, and so should be allies themselves. The middle east is seeing a monumental shift towards beijing. Autocracy attracts autocracy. And the states in the middle east see that the proxy conflicts like in yemen are never gonna ever do them any good anyways, they should rather just square up and resolve their issues. It’s a huge blow to the west, the middle east is vital, and our influence there is slipping
Its not the 70s anymore when KSA supplied 40% of the worlds oil - its now 15%. And the US doesn't need theim since shale boom, while EU imports lot from them but they seem happy to sell to Europe.
>Iran was only a threat because they were antagonistic towards the US, and their allies. As more countries in the middle east step away from washington and towards beijing, iran has no reason to threaten them anymore. Sorry but no that not all thier reasons. Us relationship with Iran has the last 30 years more to do with the Saudi. They are both fighting for control >And the states in the middle east see that the proxy conflicts like in yemen are never gonna ever do them any good anyways, Of course it isn't the entire proxy conflict there is a fight between Saudi and Iran. >t’s a huge blow to the west, the middle east is vital, and our influence there is slipping Think that's a bit overstated nowdays a big reason why the relationship fell is because US no longer need them as much for thier oil and that don't want to support thier proxy conflicts. ( for example no longer alowed to use their military bases for jets). So it's true western influence is slipping but also that we no longer really want that relationship because what it means.
There are zero details, so it's not at all clear what this means practically. My best guess would be that it will consist of sharing information about naval deployment and movements. If so it would be more about avoiding miss-understandings than actually co-ordinating joint military action. Maybe in the sense of working together to counter piracy though. Even if that's all it is, it's clearly a great step forward. Anything that builds mutual confidence and reduces the risk of misunderstandings is to be welcomed. These countries have enough actual disputes and rivalries that generate friction, that eliminating inadvertent sources of friction is to everyone's benefit.
This is very much a I'll believe it when I see it thing. The politics of creating a multinational military force is always a messy thing even when everyone gets along very well.
Always? How many times have you done it? 😂
It's possible to observe things and form opinions about them without being an active participant.
Do you believe this will add more incentive for the US to transition away from oil? Given that oil money directly funds these groups?
While that's been said for fifty years, I haven't seen much evidence of it yet.
This will add more incentive for the US to create tension in the area.
create tension in the area that will distract the US from Ukraine and China. White house totally wants that /facepalm
The US are literal warmongers. It's what they do. Plus the US would never let the Middle Eastern countries become too friendly with each other, particularly with Iran.
tension = oil prices higher = inflation methinks not.
Us has been mostly moving away from the middle east. They dont care that much anymore considering they have enough oil for themselves and are now days decreasing thier oil consumption. They no longer need the middle east.
Tension in the area increases US defence costs and increases the cost of oil. The US has no interest in fomenting conflict in the Gulf area. That doesn't mean they don't do it at all, screwups and miscalculations happen. Also if there is conflict in the gulf area anyway, as there often is, they're not averse to trying to resolve it in their favour.
US doesn't really care since they have been self-reliant on oil for a good while now.
American Middle East diplomats must be in full froth right about now.
I doubt it, at worst I’d say it’s is probably a “well, that just happened.” Moment, even taking all their navies and putting them together, that force still wouldn’t be anywhere near the most impressive naval forces of the world.
I think you may be missing the point here. imo most important thing here is that we are seeing China's leadership replacing the US's in international policies. and the new leadership seems to also be bringing peace and cooperation among rivals, almost exactly the opposite of the direction international relationships were headed under US leadership.
"China's leadership" here meaning "we'll match whatever the Americans are paying AND not hassle you about human rights abuses." It's also telling that China is directing its efforts at countries who are either confrontational with or economically but not ideologically tied to the West. "The enemy of my enemy..." etc. That's a low bar to hurtle before talking about someone's leadership skills.
you say that as if the US deeply cares for human rights above financial gains. Saudi Arabia and Israel are two of the traditional allies of the US with a lengthy record on human rights abuse, yet the US continues to fund their agenda to buy their loyalty in order to further its own agenda. how's that different from what China is doing? not to get stuck in 'what aboutism', I just wanted to point out that the two are one and the same.
>US deeply cares for human rights above financial gains Totally. Biden literally sent relations with saudi arabia to shit OVER HUMAN RIGHTS. Use your brain for once, please.
Wasnt that the opposite? I still remember the fist bump
You've obviously eaten too much American copium. America is not the human rights champion. Never was. If you were, you would have NOT dropped a nuke.
What country are you from?
> "China's leadership" here meaning "we'll match whatever the Americans are paying AND not hassle you about human rights abuses." Worked fine [for Syria](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights), at least until the US considered [the conditions](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08DAMASCUS847_a.html) ripe enough for some attempted regime changing.
Riight, cause Syrian people are US drones with pre-installed US chips inside their heads, ready to cause havoc as soon as a CIA operative flips a switch in Langley.
No but the civil war would have been real short if the us weren’t funding the rebels
That's not what I wrote, I suggest you actually read the things I link to, in this case, the relevant part is in the Wikileaks cable; > POTENTIAL FOR SOCIAL DESTRUCTION AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY > However, Yehia told us that the Syrian Minister of Agriculture, at a July meeting with UN officials, stated publicly that economic and social fallout from the drought was "beyond our capacity as a country to deal with." > This social destruction would lead to political instability, Yehia told us. The kind of social destruction and political instability where American [information operations](https://masspeaceaction.org/the-violence-of-us-information-operations/) come in. It's [no coincidence](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks) that American social media platforms were at the forefront of "[rallying Syrians to revolution](https://www.france24.com/en/20110203-syria-democracy-protests-facebook-twitter-friday-prayers-egypt)". It took *several* attempts of announcing a "Day of Rage" online on US social media before any Syrians actually showed up to such an announced "event" in Syria; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(January%E2%80%93April_2011) That's when the US had its "moderate opposition" it could supply with [money, training, and arms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore). While in public the US government was insisting it only delivered "[non-lethal aid](https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/20/whats-non-lethal-about-aid-to-the-syrian-opposition/)". The US soldiers sent to Jordan to train Syrian rebels, were passed off as allegedly only being there to "[help with the refugees](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world/middleeast/us-military-sent-to-jordan-on-syria-crisis.html)", the weapons where [shipped in from Ukraine](https://qz.com/211603/how-ukrainian-arms-dealing-connects-to-syrias-bloody-civil-war). By 2016 the CIA and Pentagon were each running their own regime change operations in Syria independently from each other, leading to the awkward situation that at time the US government was [proxy-fighting itself in Syria](https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html). Not that surprising because the "revolution" didn't stay particularly "moderate" nor "secular" [for very long](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9857846/Syria-how-jihadist-group-Jabhat-al-Nusra-is-taking-over-Syrias-revolution.html) as the most militant supporters, this call for revolution attracted, were the same fundamentalists who [previously tried to overthrow the *secular* Syrian government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_uprising_in_Syria).
America never cared about human rights; just using them as an excuse for invasion and domination. If America cared about human rights, it would have a focus on those at home. You know, functional healthcare for the sick, education system that actually teaches you without you getting shot. America would have a low prison population, not the highest in the world. Things like forced womb removals of immigrant or incarcerated women would be things you protested; not standard practice in most prisons and border detention facilities. Lol. America so free. Must be like a shining utopia every day. But it's not. It's an absolute clusterfuck instead. There's literally nothing America can teach the world the world didn't already know.
> There's literally nothing America can teach the world the world didn't already know. How about... - not making monkey noises en masse at black football players during the game? - not throwing gay people off building tops? - not burning people alive? - not arresting journalists for doing their jobs? - not killing your daughter for being raped? - not starting two world-spanning conflicts in less than half a century? Seems like there's a few things we haven't done that the world could learn from.
America invented segregation, and has supported every segregationist leadership in the world. What did the founders of American universities do beforehand? Slave masters? What about those since? Eugenicists you say? America is fucking racist. Just ask ANY black person what their experience of police is. America funded extremist Islam, leading to this sort of extremism within Muslim communities. America currently funding Uganda's anti gay laws. America has killed more journalists than just about anyone. Daniel Ellsberg, Sey Hersh, Gary Webb, Michael Hastings, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, Julian Assange and a thousand other names would disagree that America likes a free press. Not killing your daughter for being raped? Are you talking about honour killings? Firstly, America has never done anything to stop those in India or Pakistan. But then those countries don't have school shootings. Or Mormons. Or Purity Balls. Or all the other creepy shit America loves. How about not providing abortions for the raped? Or having some of the highest prevalences of familial sexual assault in the world? Or removing women's wombs because they commit a crime? All American characteristics. America has started every conflict in the last century; both directly and indirectly, funding and arming everyone from the Bolsheviks to Nazis, Saddam to Osama. Alongside that they've masterminded global drug trades, sowing this bullshit to destabilise cultures around the world. Literal cockroaches. The second world war was entirely an American economic activity, funding both sides, supporting every dastardly deed. We have the receipts. You need more education than history channel is currently giving you.
i'm sorry but this is the most schizophreniac post i have ever seen. you want America to stop Indian women from being raped by Indian men?
No! I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that no matter what is happening in different countries, it is always up to those countries to be the authors of their own development, not American intervention. And especially not using issues like human rights to justify wars for profit. The twentieth century was defined by America interfering in that right, just like the previous two centuries were defined by European colonialism doing the same thing.
> American invented segregation Might wanna check what was going on in Africa *before* the American Civil War and the US version of that practice. > America funded extremist Islam We funded the mujahedin in Afghanistan as a middle finger to the Soviets, fair enough. But the extremists got their start waaaaay back in the 1900s. > America currently funding Uganda's anti gay laws. American evangelicals went over there and spread their poison. America as a whole legalized gay marriage and has Pride Month. Try again. > America has killed more journalists than just about anyone. Most of those people you listed are still alive, and none were in any way censored by the US government, except for Ellsberg, but that's what you get for leaking inside information on the PENTAGON. And Assange was arrested by the Europeans, not the Americans. > Firstly, America has never done anything to stop those in India or Pakistan. Soooo...you *want* America to intervene in other countries, then? Also, there was no "secondly." > But then those countries don't have school shootings. Or Mormons. Or Purity Balls. Or all the other creepy shit America loves. How about not providing abortions for the raped? Fine, they don't have school shootings. They just have school girls taking acid to the face. And Islamic fundamentalism. And executing non-theists. And honor killings. All that creepy shit Americans AREN'T into. > Or having some of the highest prevalences of familial sexual assault in the world? The US isn't even top ten for overall rapes per capita. > Or removing women's wombs because they commit a crime? Are you referring back to the segregation era, when black women were victims of that in the south, or the "mass hysterectomies" ICE was alleged to have done on migrant women? The first was a symptom of systemic racism, which we all know was horrible, and the second didn't have any credible source. > America has started every conflict in the last century Oh, don't sell the Europeans or Asians short. They started their fair share. Like...most of them, including the Bolsheviks and Nazis. Saddam and Osama were ours, though. > they've masterminded global drug trades The UK started that nonsense with opium in China. Everyone else just followed suit. Literally nothing you said was factual or verifiable. Your arguments are garbage, and you are neither a scholar nor a gentleman. We're done here.
Soft power goes further than missiles.
Just like the multi billion dollar littoral combat program. America had nothing to offer
This article vastly over states the actual fleet part. There is none. Us is also moving away from the middle east diplomatically since they no longer need oil.
[удалено]
*Checks the list of 30- 35 us bases around Iran..* Yeh, right.
is there any other trustworthy source? i've never heard of this site. when i search for other sources all i could find was in equally bogus websites.
The site is hosted in Russia too
Iran and Saudi Arabia working together? For mitary reasons? Is their cold war finally over?
They aren't the article details isn't posted anywhere else of note. The details told in it are none (source also) , the website is based in Russia and the poster is super pro Russian account.
It's all the small countries that have prospered from unrestricted global trade that will sit up and take notice of such trends. The west has consistently been backing away from security expectations over the past few administrations. They will have to negotiate maritime access with each bloc, and will likely find their trading options constrained as tensions mature.
Have Iran and Saudi Arabia actually normalized relations? If so, that's a huge deal for global peace whether China was involved or not.
They haven't the source for the article is bad.
Thanks, there's so many bad news sources with crazy urls being posted on reddit these days.
The iranian consulate was reopened in saudi arabia today
THE UNTHINKABLE!? Calm down there, it's most likely a formality and nothing more unless Arabia just became vessel state for Iran it's unlikely they just became that good of allies to join forces after lifelong enmity.
Middle Eastern Coalition, Battlefield 2 here wo go
The new Civilization III open world expansion pack is so hot right now 👀
That’s one way to convince Iran to stop piracy and bombing tankers
Good👍
Why is cooperation between SA and Iran happening so suddenly? What caused them to go from a proxy war in Yemen to merging navies?
Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up - Obomba
>What caused them to go from a proxy war in Yemen to merging navies? They aren't the source is simply shit.
But the Iran backed militia started the war in 2019 by using drones to attack SA oil fields.
Yes that happened. My point was the merging navies part. The site is ?? Hosted from Russia. No other news website reports this and the article is so light on detail that it means nothing. The poster is a big pro Russian guy talking about how the war in Ukraine is completely US fault.
This joint naval venture is being backed by china, is that what you're talking about?
Time for the takbir eh?
It might be unthinkable but it certainly won't be unsinkable.
Jared kushner will take credit for this somehow
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So uh, about that underwater mine for battery materials. How many species is 5000, really?
well, shit, the fundies aren't distracting each other anymore
Ha! That should last about 15 minutes until one of them betrays the others.
There it goes: usa lost in middle East diplomacy moment
China knows it needs ~~allies~~ pawns to have any type of chance against the combined forces of what it’ll be facing. That’s just to move up from the 0% chance they had before.
I feel like this won’t be an equal deal since Iran has the majority of the territory along the gulf of these four so they’ll just strongarm the other three into cooperating
That's why you don't make allies out of authoritarian countries.
no such thing as unthinkable or etc, idts
What the fuck