AP reporting US ship attacked

[Lex Luthier]

Something something from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli something something

Rhubarbrhubarbrhubarb Millions for defense, not One Cent for tribute rhubarbrhubarb

The US embarked on a ruinously expensive war two oceans away less than a decade after the country was founded.
The war was against a confederation of maritime kingdoms devoted to spreading Islam via aggressive conquest, piracy, and the slave trade.

As for the actions between 1850 and 1950s, the countries were either in open warfare with Great Britain and France, or being colonized by them. We didn’t have to do a thing for a century, because of The Royal Navy and La Legion Etrangere (formed in colonial Algeria in 1831 by an act of the French government.) Not coincidentally, the break up of the colonial system commenced in the late 1940s right around the time of the start of proxy wars of the Cold War between the Soviet Union (& its satrapies), and the forces of the West (and its associated nations).

You can’t pin this one on Israel.

[TGS]

What enemies did we have in the middle east before the US supported Israel unequivocally?

Prior to US support of Israel, there were no independent powers in the middle east which could give us trouble. They were extractive colonies up until a few years heforehand, generally concerned with their colonizers.

Prior to WWII, we were also kind of a nobody on the worldwide stage. Maybe "a nobody" is a bit harsh given the Monroe doctrine, Gunboat Diplomacy, etc, but we were pretty far down the pecking order if you were a budding power that had a bone to pick with whatever worldwide power was restricting your growing influence...it probably wasn't us, and if we are talking about the middle east it definitely wasn't us.

So, while it's fair to say that US support of Israel results in a degree of trouble, it's still pretty asinine to make the point you're trying to make.

I mean, you're also the guy who adamantly claimed that tweakers don't steal copper wiring when in fact it results in a billion dollars of loss every year, so I'm not surprised you picked up another topic to say dumb shit about.

The US embarked on a ruinously expensive war two oceans away less than a decade after the country was founded.

But we got a cool sword out of it.

[DDTSGM]

What enemies did we have in the middle east before the US supported Israel unequivocally?

Barbary pirates

Until the mid 1800s, sure. But what about prior to the 1950s?

The cols war in the middle-east started in the early 50's. After the U.S. muffed the deal with Egypt for financing the Aswan Dam (sp?) the middle east basically ended up with the Soviets cozying up to the Middle Eastern 'Republics' and the United States siding with the Monarchies - among them Libya, Iraq and Iran (who at one time loved us for kicking the Russians out and helping out the Shah - that, of course, all changed) and Saudi Arabia.

Prior to 1950 it essentially depended on whether the nation sided with the Axis Powers or the Allies.

[medmo]

Maybe, maybe not. Lots of ambiguity here. The ship shot down drones in their vicinity. Presumably it'd be more difficult to calculate trajectory for a drone than a missile but either way, omitting the assessed target does not mean that it wasn't the USN ship. Regardless, at some point between six-ish weeks of us blasting ordinance out of the sky, attacks on American forces in the region, and now multiple forms of kinetic engagement against international civilian cargo ships, you would hope that America would find its big dick energy again and start killing the motherfuckers that are spitting in our face on the world stage.

While we are at it, let's kill all of the motherfuckers that murdered 31 Americans and and kidnapped 13 more on October 7th. All of them, all of their leaders and all of their associates.

[Trigger]

Wow - that’s an expensive way to deal with drones / low-speed cruise missiles.
Admittedly, once launched, and when directed at US assets, they need to be shot down.

But I’m growing weary of the US being REactive (shooting down drones, conducting strikes once a US serviceman is (eventually) actually seriously injured).

My warfighter training taught me that it’s VERY preferable to be the side that has / seizes the initiative. Right now our adversaries have the initiative, and we are reacting to them.

ETA - my wife just did a quick search of mainstream media. No mention of these events. Not that I question the validity of the linked report.
Just pointing out that most Americans don’t even know it’s happened because MSM doesn’t care.

A week late, a dollar short, Gyro I'm going to dog-pile onto your post. I agree with everything you said, but i want to highlight a few things.

War is a test of will, and for the past few years the strength of our national and international will has been extremely weak. From our leadership, to the non-interest of our average citizen, per your point above. We have squandered all of our national power in the DIME, and international adversaries see us as weak and indecisive.

We will not take the initiative as you discuss above, for precisely this reason. Until we rediscover our national will, this mess will continue. Nature abhors a vacuum, thus regional powers are embarking on conquest they would not have in the past.

[Lex Luthier]

A week late, a dollar short, Gyro I'm going to dog-pile onto your post. I agree with everything you said, but i want to highlight a few things.

War is a test of will, and for the past few years the strength of our national and international will has been extremely weak. From our leadership, to the non-interest of our average citizen, per your point above. We have squandered all of our national power in the DIME, and international adversaries see us as weak and indecisive.

We will not take the initiative as you discuss above, for precisely this reason. Until we rediscover our national will, this mess will continue. Nature abhors a vacuum, thus regional powers are embarking on conquest they would not have in the past.

I do not think you are wrong. I just hope it doesn't take something catastrophic or another gut-wrenchingly heinous atrocity to shake the national consciousness from its current fever-dream.

[FNFAN]

Prior to US su
But we got a cool sword out of it.

The Naval Cutlass?

[RJ]

The Naval Cutlass?

"...On the occasion of his departure, Hamet honored Lt. O’Bannon by presenting him his jeweled sword with a Mameluke hilt. This sword was the model for the dress sword used by Marine Corps officers today, making it the oldest continuously used weapon in the US military arsenal."

Fun fact: I'm descended from this guy:

https://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/ns_obannon/

[Lex Luthier]

The sword in question:



The dudes we were fighting in 1797 were satraps of the Ottoman Caliphate.

[TGS]

The Naval Cutlass?

The USMC Officer's Saber.

USMC 1st Lt Presley O'Bannon from Faquier County, Virginia, led the expedition in the Barbary War. He commanded a detachment of 7 Marines and two naval midshipmen, and joined forces with a larger force of Mamelukes. The Mamelukes (muslim slave soldiers) that joined him (in exchange for being in the good graces of the U.S. when they established a new country) presented him with one of their swords at the end of hostilities as a badge of honor. It became the official USMC officers blade, and within the USMC is known simply as "the Mameluke".

Building trust with local forces and leading an insurgency to over thow a nation in 1801-1805. Eat your heart out, green berets.