The US is wrecking the Middle East again - in ways you don't even realise

[EdwardBernays]

As you know - maybe - the US has a long history of installing dictators, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, training torturous secret police, bombing civilians, helping dictators bomb civilians, arming terrorists, etc., etc., etc., in the Middle East. Many people assume that the US is better behaved under Obama, but sadly - very sadly - this is not really the case.

A great example of lousy and illegal foreign policy activity is happening now - not that the US media would tell you - and most Americans, as always, are clueless about it.

Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, with US made weapons and US military "assistance". The US has also repeatedly blockaded the main port of Yemen - supposedly to stop Iranian arms, but also stopping food shipments. The Yemini population is starving to death due to this. This is all over the international news, well it has popped up repeatedly for months, and the US roll is not a secret. In fact many international organisations are calling the US roll a war crime. Sure how else could you describe collective punishment and bombing civilian populations?

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/trail-of-civilian-deaths-and-starvation-in-yemen-is-paved-with-us-backed-war-crimes
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/yemen-bloody-trail-of-civilian-death-and-destruction-paved-with-evidence-of-war-crimes/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-blockade-starves-yemen-of-vital-supplies-as-bombing-raids-continue-10509460.html

Another wonderful thing the US is doing, is propping up Saudi Arabia, with promises of defence against enemies and trillions in weapons, which it then helps them use against civilians.

In November alone it sold SA over a billion dollars of "smart bombs". This support allows Saudi Arabia to act however they like, knowing that no one can challenge them without challenging the US.

This means that all of mass executions are facilitated by US weaponry and US promises and basically paid for with US taxpayer dollars.

Iran, which is one of the most abused countries in the regions - abused by the US that is - is again suffering at the hands of the US, with multiple Sunni nations now cutting ties with it, after it promised revenge for the Saudi execution of a top Shia cleric... a hate crime by any definition.

Instead of standing up against endless Saudi crimes the US - you - helps them in every possible way. Even after they used oil revenue form the US to fund religious schools, which trained up people like Osama bin Ladin and other 9/11 actors. That's right, you funded 9/11 in many ways. Feels great right?

You shouldn't be surprised though, as you also funded the founding of Al Qaeda, back in 1979, under Jimmy Carter. Carter was told that funding radical Muslims in Afghanistan would lead to a Soviet invasion and war, but he just ignored that. That invasion led to hundreds of thousands of women and children being killed, and many many many other tragedies, and gave al Qaeda a base to plan 9/11 - after being trained in hate - again with US tax money - in Saudi schools.

Good times.

Of course compared to Iran SA is blessed. The favourite child of America in the ME.

When it does finally hit the media, the fact that the US is helping starve an entire country, and bombing civilian populations, to help the worst country in the ME, don't be surprised. When more Saudi trained terrorists attack America don't be surprised. No one else is surprised. The rest of the world knows EXACTLY what is happening. It would be embarrassing after all to be the last people on the planet to know what their government is doing.

[cpwm17]

1. This is business as usual for the world's number one exporter of war.

And when some Muslim takes revenge, Muslims will be found collectively guilty for their alleged propensity towards violence, and the bombing$ will increase.

[EdwardBernays]

2. Absolutely.

It's all real politik and business casual war crimes when the west does it, but religious extremists run amuck and savages at the gates when there's any pushback (or blowback) from our policies.

I'd wonder how Americans would behave if Iran invaded, or overthrew our president repeatedly. Or creates an American secret police which then killed 10s of thousands of Americans.

Lol.

[cpwm17]

5. If any nation tried to do to us what the US does to many nations in the world,

they would get nuked.

This is American exceptionalism and de facto white supremacy that allows Americans to think nothing of abusing so many nations filled with scary brown people.

Sam Harris:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

"Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."

so

"We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. Theirs is a kill-the-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It seems certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be a part of our future for many years to come".

People that call themselves liberal support this crap.

[EdwardBernays]

8. The greater support comes in the form of...

...Willful ignorance.

Americans won't even have a conversation about these issues. Politicians won't discuss them and school won't acknowledge them....

Not that that matters one bit to the people we're paying to kill and starve and torture and oppress. They don't have that luxury.

[leveymg]

33. ME "allies" and US are co-dependent upon a cycle of war and profit

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Israel are all deeply complicitous in creating the environment of constant warfare that keep these right-wing regimes in power across the region, and the US involved as their chief enforcer and arms merchant. Working with Israel rightist and American neocons, the Saudis and Qatar created ISIS in their own image out of the shell of al-Qaeda.

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43724.htm
(Repost)
A Special Relationship
The United States Is Teaming Up With Al Qaeda, Again

By Andrew Cockburn

December 14, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Harpers" -

( . . .)

By the beginning of 2012, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States were all heavily involved in supporting the armed rebellion against Assad. In theory, American support for the Free Syrian Army was limited to “nonlethal supplies” from both the State Department and the CIA. Qatar, which had successfully packed the opposition Syrian National Council with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, operated under no such restrictions. A stream of loaded Qatari transport planes took off from Al Udeid and headed to Turkey, whence their lethal cargo was moved into Syria.

“The Qataris were not at all discriminating in who they gave arms to,” the former White House official told me. “They were just dumping stuff to lucky recipients.” Chief among the lucky ones were Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, both of which had benefited from a rebranding strategy instituted by Osama bin Laden. The year before he was killed, bin Laden had complained about the damage that offshoots such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, with its taste for beheadings and similar atrocities, had done to his organization’s image. He directed his media staff to prepare a new strategy that would avoid “everything that would have a negative impact on the perception” of Al Qaeda. Among the rebranding proposals discussed at his Abbottabad compound was the simple expedient of changing the organization’s name. This strategy was gradually implemented for the group’s newer offshoots, allowing Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham to present themselves to the credulous as kinder, gentler Islamists.

The rebranding program was paradoxically assisted by the rise of the Islamic State, a group that had split off from the Al Qaeda organization partly in disagreement over the image-softening exercise enjoined by Zawahiri. Although the Islamic State attracted many defectors and gained territory at the expense of its former Nusra partners, its assiduously cultivated reputation for extreme cruelty made the other groups look humane by comparison. (According to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, many Nusra members suspect that the Islamic State was created by the Americans “to discredit jihad.”)

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, driven principally by its virulent enmity toward Iran, Assad’s main supporter, was eager to throw its weight behind the anti-Assad crusade. By December 2012, the CIA was arranging for large quantities of weapons, paid for by the Saudis, to move from Croatia to Jordan to Syria.

“The Saudis preferred to work through us,” explained the former White House official. “They didn’t have an autonomous capability to find weapons. We were the intermediaries, with some control over the distribution. There was an implicit illusion on the part of the U.S. that Saudi weapons were going to groups with some potential for a pro-Western attitude.” This was a curious illusion to entertain, given Saudi Arabia’s grim culture of Wahhabi austerity as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s flat declaration, in a classified cable from 2009, that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Some in intelligence circles suspect that such funding is ongoing. “How much Saudi and Qatari money — and I’m not suggesting direct government funding, but I am suggesting maybe a blind eye being turned — is being channeled towards ISIS and reaching it?” Dearlove asked in July 2014. “For ISIS to be able to surge into the Sunni areas of Iraq in the way that it’s done recently has to be the consequence of substantial and sustained funding. Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” Those on the receiving end of Islamic State attacks tend to agree. Asked what could be done to help Iraq following the group’s lightning assaults in the summer of 2014, an Iraqi diplomat replied: “Bomb Saudi Arabia.”

[EdwardBernays]

36. spot on

if you haven't seen Bitter Lake, you should

[cpwm17]

41. When Hillary's war-mongering is pointed out to her many supporters

they don't seem to care.

And here's Trump's plan for Syria: "I would bomb the shit out of them (ISIS)... and I'd take the oil." Note the crowd's enthusiastic reaction:

These are the two leading candidates in the next election.

[EdwardBernays]

43. Yep

People are addicted to ignorance.

And look many American are so brainwashed by propaganda they honestly believe that Iran is trying to kill them and that America is a peaceful nation just trying to protect itself.

The truth is way too hard for them to even accept.

[G_j]

3. it doesn't get much more depressing

than this.

[EdwardBernays]

4. It's actually a lot worse

When you consider this has been happening for decades and it's not even vaguely mentioned in any school books or history classes.

Kids are deliberately made ignorant.

And their parents don't know enough to help them.

[TheJames]

6. You mean, still, right??? n/t

[EdwardBernays]

7. As always

Without end

[jalan48]

9. Thanks for the post.

My only caveat would be that the National Security State/MIC is doing this. These are the folks actually in charge of our nation.

[EdwardBernays]

14. yes and no...

we live in a democracy, ostensibly, so we are in fact the ones in charge... I know that in order to ACTUALLY take charge the population would have to awaken from a DEEEEEP slumber, but... the difficulty of that task doesn't actually forgive our responsibility as citizens.

[jalan48]

16. I think in name only at this point.

The National Security State doesn't change when a new President assumes office. These folks are behind the scenes, gathering info on all of us, including politicians that are supposed to be over seeing their activities.

[EdwardBernays]

22. again

Those people are left in power by politicians and can be taken out of power by politicians.

But politicians would have to WANT to do it, and they'd have to rally the American public and the media.

It's not easy, obviously, but these people are not untouchable...

[jalan48]

26. I agree that in theory this could happen but realistically I don't see it taking place.

I don't think the generals, NSA and CIA big wigs are going to allow themselves to be voted out. As soon as a President talks massive cutbacks in defense and national security I think there would an uptick in terrorist attacks. The vast majority of the American people have been conditioned to react in the appropriate way and the President would have to either appease the MIC or be impeached. I'm not saying we shouldn't vote for the candidate who is best on this issue, Bernie for me, I'm just not optimistic about his ability to make meaningful change in this area.

[EdwardBernays]

27. welll.....

I don't know what I think about all of that...

What I do know is that we'll probably never find out as no one is going to try and change America or wake up Americans.

[betterdemsonly]

10. I know this is happening but for the world I can't figure

out what the motivation is. Saudi Arabia would be easier to take than Iraq or Iran, and we have more justification to regime change SA.

[EdwardBernays]

13. welll...

read this and it might be more clear:

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/?single=1

If not, watch this:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hdcji

[stupidicus]

11. hardly, it's just that it seems pointless to post about it now

I'm surprised you've gotten this many responses

[EdwardBernays]

12. and that is the American attitude

why bother caring about the crimes your country is involved in, or the civilians your tax dollars pay to kill... even when this frequently ends up in things like 9/11... why care?

[stupidicus]

17. well, it's the reality here

I don't think it's to be attributed to not caring, because I do and long have, as I suspect many here do as well, but rather about the distraction of the intra-party war we're all embroiled in and distracted by.

Hell, as I've noted several times, and recently even, Bernie's vote for the Afghan War is the biggest blemish on his record, and it should go without saying that his FP pov are the ones he's still keeping closest to his chest...

[EdwardBernays]

21. a few people caring

is not the same as America caring... America as a whole does NOT care about what their country does... go look at Iran Contra and see how many people cared, or Pinochet, or Greece or Guatemala, etc., etc.

Americans care about themselves and not about the people their military or the CIA kills or subjugates.

[stupidicus]

31. I'd be the last one to dispute that

since the twin towers were figuratively replaced with the evil twins ignorance and apathy, it's (the evil products of exceptional america) been an even more bipartisan affair since they started casting their long and dark shadows across this land.

Far too many on the left (well, that claim to be on the left anyway) still believe that rightwingers have a monopoly on apathy and ignorance, and imo, their support for HC makes that laughable since it makes them obviously mired in both imo...

[EdwardBernays]

34. agreed completely

and sure most people that "care" about it, only care about it in theory... ah well.

[GummyBearz]

18. We elected Obama because he was the best candidate in the last 30 years

If this is his policy, then I guess we are really screwed

[EdwardBernays]

20. We're only screwed

because we let our media and politicians ignore this stuff...

Why was the US history with Iran COMPLETELY ignored by politicians and the media during the endless debate about the Iran nuclear deal?

Because Americans are ignorant of their own history, and the media takes advantage of this ignorance to spin a narrative. Teh same is true for politicians.

If Americans DEMANDED that their politicians talk about these issues the media would follow suit...

But are YOU going to start a petition to demand eg Clinton acknowledge how badly we've fucked Iran for decades? No. No one here will bother themselves with the effort... and that's the real problem... well... a major chunk of the real problem.

The people that make the decisions about US foreign policy know, and they know Americans DON'T know, and they do everything they can to keep it that way.

[GummyBearz]

25. You make a lot of assumptions about someone you never met

I always found that type annoying and often wrong. Please reply with more assumptions.

[EdwardBernays]

28. Who in particular

are you referring to, as I wasn't referring to any specific individual...?

[GummyBearz]

29. After emphasizing the word "YOU" in your previous post, YOU have to ask who is being referred to?

here is a quick reminder of what you said:

"But are YOU going to start a petition to demand eg Clinton acknowledge how badly we've fucked Iran for decades? No. No one here will bother themselves with the effort... and that's the real problem... well... a major chunk of the real problem. "


I think many people reading this, including myself, are aware of the US's history with Iran, and have made efforts to educate others. Again, people like YOU who make assumptions are usually wrong in my experience.

[EdwardBernays]

32. sigh

Read my entire post carefully.

It's all in general terms...

If you really are so thin skinned as to be offended by a generalisation I'd rather not have a conversation with you, and frankly you seem very rude.

To be as clear as possible.

I was NOT referring to YOU SPECIFICALLY.

I don't KNOW YOU SPECIFICALLY and aside from your jerkish behaviour on this thread I have nothing to base my opinion of you on.

As for "many people reading this thread" what percentage of Americans is that?

If the few dozen people that read this already knew about it, and already are talking about it, great, but that's SUCH a tiny percentage of Americans that it in no way undercuts my beliefs.

Anyway, don't feel the need to respond to this. I have enough negativity in my life without you piling on.

[GummyBearz]

35. Fair enough, no piling on.

Sorry I took exception but I did feel that emphasizing the word "YOU" was calling me out personally. I don't alert on that because I feel its too harsh, but I will stick up for myself, hence the response. I wish you a good rest of your day.

[EdwardBernays]

37. It wasn't

sorry if it felt that way.

Glad to see it was a misunderstanding.

Have a nice day yourself.

[betterdemsonly]

30. This is where you are wrong

writing petitions does nothing. Establishment media and politicians do not care about this stuff, and won't just because you petition them. You have to take power from them and replace them with different people. Elect better people, and break up the corporate media, and this stuff will change.

[EdwardBernays]

38. I don't think it would solve the problem

but the fact that no one even TRIES is telling...

We just had MONTHS of news coverage about the Iran nuclear deal and not once did I hear the US history - pre-79 - mentioned.

I AGREE that the best option people have is to elect better people, but this has to be part of the conversation... Sure Bernie won't discuss it, much less Hillary... and their supporters don't use it as a basis for deciding between them - there's no difference in this case at any rate - or for selecting them in the first place.

I have never seen Americans demand a candidate discuss eg illegal CIA activity as part of their stump speech... and that isn't likely to change any time soon...

[betterdemsonly]

49. Do you remember how they ignored the Iraq war protests

than they ignored the ows protests and before all of that they ignored the Seattle protests. There are thousands of online petitions on various things, all ignored. When we protested Iraq, Nancy Pelosi called it a focus group.

BTW, Bernie has addressed this history of overthrowing other governments in the last debate. He just didn't specifically mention Iran, because we have done this more in latin America than the middle east. The UK bears much responsibility for things that have happened there. Their relationship to the Saudis goes back to Lawrence of Arabia. The Roosevelts were anglocentrics who openly wanted to coopt the British Empire so they followed suite.

[EdwardBernays]

51. well.... :)

I do remember that the protests did nothing... they rarely do in the West these days.

I do remember Bernie mentioning it vaguely and in passing, but really that wasn't much, in context... Better than absolutely nothing, but unless you knew what he was referring to you'd be none the wiser.

And in the context of Iran, he's a, "I would bomb Iran as a last option" kinda guy... which doesn't fill me with much hope.

He gets my money every month, but not for these reasons.

[jonno99]

42. Yep - money is power. Unfortunately our politicians get to pick societies winners and losers...

As such, the lobbyists try that much harder to grease to skids of those politicians who will at the least leave them alone, and at best give them an advantage over their competitors.

IMO - If we could find a way to fix this we'd be well on our way to a more fair and equitable society.

[EdwardBernays]

45. Well

There's clear steps to fixing that. Sure even Trump is openly derisive of Citizens United. More so than Hillary even.

But it would take a focus that Americans are seemingly incapable of anymore. Fixing THAT is a whole other issue.

And of course the media and the Internet are also huge issues.

[philosslayer]

15. And the Bush legacy continues.....

[EdwardBernays]

19. these problems

predate Bush by decades...

The Saudi problem dates back to FDR:

"Roosevelt and Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security – military assistance, training and a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia – in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil."



Of course the US meddling in the region involves more than Saudi Arabia

[ronnie624]

23. The US blockade

is a deliberate targeting of civilians with hardship, disease and starvation, just like Iraq during the nineties, when we murdered a half million Iraqi children.

We have much to atone for.

Excellent post, and thanks for the informative links.

[EdwardBernays]

24. yes it is

and it's at the behest of one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism, our ally, SA.

We won't have a chance to atone... we'll collapse long before Americans cop on.

[ronnie624]

44. The Western provoked violence in the ME

underpins an illogical, corrupted energy system, which those with the greatest influence over the US power system, have no intention of reforming. I think you're right about a possible US collapse before the desperately needed reform is achieved.

[EdwardBernays]

46. That was the beginning

now the US foreign policy is seemingly inextricably entwined with that of our "allies".

Seemingly.

The reality is that the US would have to radically change it's foreign policy and it's foreign policy objectives... AND we'd have to let some current "friends" collapse.

And the truth would make Americans - most probably - turn their back on foreign adventures to a greater degree than ever, leaving Europe and Africa to fend for itself after the collapse of more corrupt governments... and more refugees, etc., etc.

[truedelphi]

57. And on top of all this, when Muslims from the ME enter the USA, they

Are targeted by the alphabet agencies to become provacateurs, or else to be patsies for the real perps, etc.

An excellent book was written about this, "Harbor" by Lorraine Adams.

[EdwardBernays]

58. thanks!

I'll try and track that down!

[truedelphi]

69. I got my copy of that book at the library -

And Amazon and E bay have it too.

Really well done, with Algerian refugee as the central character. I started reading it just a month or so before the Boston Marathon Bombing, and what is presented in the book made me totally feel for the younger Tsarenev Brother.

Any really "bad egg" from the refugee situation is going to be totally utilized and then rewarded by our alphabet agencies, while the more innocent among them get to be the fall guys.

[CoffeeCat]

39. If you want to know what they're doing and why

All you have to do is read Rebuilding America's Defenses. The neocons/PNACers were kind enough to post their Middle East foreign policy on a website and lay it all out for us.

They even list the countries on their wish list: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya.

Their plan, in short? For the US to dominate the region geopolitically and plunder it's resources. They'll do this by destabilizing these countries, overthrowing leaders, bombing, declaring war, arming certain factions who will do the destroying for the U.S.

And this is precisely what we are doing.

Hillary Clinton has had a huge part of making these neocon dreams come true. One of the architects of Rebuilding America's Defenses and a co-founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan, was one of her chief-foreign policy advisers while she was SOS. Hillary championed the overthrow of Gaddafi and left he region a violent, failed state. So kind of Hillary to give the neocons such a big gift.

That alone should discredit her from ever running for dog catcher in Walla Walla, let alone President of the United States.

Kagan's neocon dreams live on in the Foreign Policy Initiative, which was formed after PNAC was dissolved. The FPI is considered the new think-tank gathering place for the neocons.

Why was this right-wing, neocon trash one of Hillary Clinton's advisers while she was SOS?

[EdwardBernays]

40. well.......

you're RIGHT, but...

These policies are a continuation of DECADES of US foreign policy, including multiple coups, endless civilian deaths, secret treaties, installed dictators, rigged elections, funding terrorist groups, theft of resources, etc., etc., etc., that most Americans know nothing about.

That ignorance is what allows people like the Neocons to have any power at all... the same goes for scum like Kagan.

Sure even Hilary herself threatened to nuke Iran at one point...

This sort of disgusting nonsense is mainstream US foreign policy.

[madokie]

47. No wonder the military industrial complex AKA

our main stream media are not reporting on Bernie at all. Or very little. I only watch the local news in the morning and I can't remember the last time I've heard his name mentioned at all.

I don't think Bernie would facilitate all of this warmongering and that is the reason why things are as they are.

[EdwardBernays]

48. Wellllll

I've never heard Bernie mention the history of the US in Iran. And he has said he'd be open to military attacks on Iran if he thought they'd be on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.

Honestly I think Iran getting nukes would be about the most stabilising thing possible in the Middle East. It certainly would be a great check to the US' destructive policies there.

But a better policy still would be to change our attitude completely to Iran. They're our natural ally in the region.

At any rate I support Bernie, but he doesn't seem to represent a huge paradigm shift re US foreign policy.

As far as I can tell.

[EX500rider]

54. "I think Iran getting nukes would be about the most stabilising thing possible in the Middle East"

God no.....they meddle in other countries enough as it is, plus it would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, hard to see how that would be helpful.

[elleng]

50. Nothing new here.

[Strelnikov_]

52. Petrodollar n/t

[EdwardBernays]

53. initially

yes... but there's so much more to it now sadly...

[EX500rider]

55. We or Carter didn't "fund" the creation of Al Qaeda...

....since Carter was out of office in Jan of '81 and Al Qaeda wasn't even formed till '88-'89, way after we stopped funding the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets.

And Saudi Arabia has a GDP of around $750 billion, they could buy all the weapons they wanted with or without the US.

Also the blockade of Yemen is a Saudi coalition blockade, not a US one. And they do allow humanitarian aid to enter after inspection.
From your link:
The blockade was compounded in August when airstrikes hit the Red Sea port of Hodeida, the main point of entry for most goods into the north – which was controlled by the Houthis at the time of the attack. The majority of commercial vessels have since deemed the port too risky to enter.

[EdwardBernays]

56. Factually wrong

The US was funding Islamists that went on to become AQ in 1979.

Bresnewski himself told Carter it would lead to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

As for the GOP of SA. While it's true that SA has other trade parters, three of its top four had oil deals brokered by the US and arw major US allies. Those three make up almost 50% of SA oil reveneue. The US has LONG subsidised weapons sales and given sweetheart deals to SA as well. So. Nice try.

As for your very feeble attempt to justify the collective punishment of Yemen at the behest of SA, no one except US apologists agree with what your saying... and that includes Amnesty International.

Google: Yemen Blockade War Crimes and you'll see exactly what the rest of the world including multiple aid organisations are saying.

For those too lazy to google:

"Twenty million Yemenis, nearly 80% of the population, are in urgent need of food, water and medical aid, in a humanitarian disaster that aid agencies say has been dramatically worsened by a naval blockade imposed by an Arab coalition with US and British backing.

Washington and London have quietly tried to persuade the Saudis, who are leading the coalition, to moderate its tactics, and in particular to ease the naval embargo, but to little effect. A small number of aid ships is being allowed to unload but the bulk of commercial shipping, on which the desperately poor country depends, are being blocked.

Despite western and UN entreaties, Riyadh has also failed to disburse any of the $274m it promised in funding for humanitarian relief. According to UN estimates due to be released next week 78% of the population is in need of emergency aid, an increase of 4 million over the past three months"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/saudi-led-naval-blockade-worsens-yemen-humanitarian-disaster

Sounds like the food aid is pouring through/sarcasm

[EX500rider]

59. I agree one of us is factually wrong.

Carter was out of office over 7 years before al-Qaeda was formed. And since the the Afghan resistance movement was assisted by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, the People's Republic of China and others it's unlikely lack of US involvement would have changed anything.
Here's the Afghan Mujahideen who fought the Soviets...notice none of them are called Al Qaeda:
Jamiat-e Islami
Shura-e Nazar
Gulbuddin faction
Maktab al-Khadamat
Khalis faction
Ittehad i-Islami
IRM
NLF
NIFA
Harakat i-Islami
Afghan Hezbollah
Nasr Party (IVOA)
COIRGA
Shura Party
IRM
UOIF
Raad Party

And Saudi's major trading partners are: China 13.3%, Japan 13%, US 12.9%, South Korea 10%, India 8.9%, Singapore 4%
If we didn't buy 12% of their oil someone else would.

And they get no "subsidised weapons sales and sweetheart deals" They pay full price:

Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagons arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Departments direct commercial sales program during that same period.
Oil rich Saudi Arabia is a cash-paying customer. It receives no U.S. military assistance to finance these purchases.
http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm

You say in your Op: The US has also repeatedly blockaded the main port of Yemen.
Yet your excerpt from the Guardian says:
Washington and London have quietly tried to persuade the Saudis, who are leading the coalition, to moderate its tactics, and in particular to ease the naval embargo.

[EdwardBernays]

61. Wow

I wonder exactly why you're choosing to lie.

Very interesting line of BS you're pushing.

"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention.[1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992)."

That was the beginning of AQ.

I love how you think that "quietly" trying to convince your ally to stop using the bombs you sell to bomb civilians is soke amazing feet. Quietly ask them to be less rigid with the blocade that youre part of.

"Please boss can i atop starving this child?

No, but here's a medal for asking; how brave of you!"

As for subsidised sales and sweetheart deals they do of course exist. Part of what the kingdom offers in return is US military bases in SA and endless free military support. Like this blocade which is costing the US taxpayer millions and the Saudis nothing.

Here's what AI site saying about your buddies:

"Citing "damning evidence of war crimes," Amnesty International has condemned America's continued support of Saudi Arabia's air war in Yemen. In a report released yesterday, the human-rights organization called on the United States to stop selling bombs, fighter jets, and combat helicopters to the Saudis."

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/amnesty-international-united-states-yemen-weapons

[EX500rider]

65. Sorry, the Saudi's aren't my "buddies" lol

..and I know about "Operation Cyclone" and if you read about it you will see the Saudi's matched the US funding to the Mujahedeen.
And the Saudi's could afford to buy weapons from anybody, so the US not selling them to them wouldn't make any difference.
Or do you think the Russians or Chinese would have too many scruples? lol

[EX500rider]

66. So let me see..

.....the US selling weapons to the country of Saudi Arabia....bad
The US keeping the Iranians from shipping weapons to the rebels in Yemen also bad? lol

[JEB]

60. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson

seems to agree with much of what you say and he had a view from the inside.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017314594

[EdwardBernays]

64. Thanks

I'll check that out!

[anigbrowl]

62. Interesting handle you have there

Not someone I'd choose to identify with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

[EdwardBernays]

63. The point is to raise awareness

Not to glorify him

[Fairgo]

67. You, I like

Well done. You redeem this place with your OP.

[EdwardBernays]

68. Thank you very much

I appreciate your kind words