Saudi tanks cross border into Yemen - Polidicks

[release] [h2]Saudi tanks have reportedly entered into Yemen.[/h2] [img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20110919/esmaeeli20110919131257903.jpg[/img] [I]Saudi, US built M60 Patton MBT's and AAV-7A1's pictured[/I] A convoy of Saudi tanks has reportedly crossed into Yemen to assist Sana'a in suppressing anti-government protests in the country, Yemini fighters say. Opposition activists say a number of Saudi tanks and other armored vehicles entered the country on Monday to intensify the Ali Abdallah Saleh regime's months-long brutal crackdown on anti-regime protesters. On Sunday, the Yemen Post quoted Saudi officials as saying that Riyadh would send weapons and armored vehicles into Yemen to quell the ongoing popular revolution. The report comes as forces loyal to Saleh are continuing a brutal crackdown on anti-regime protesters in the capital Sana'a. At least 60 Yemenis have been killed in the past 24 hours. Earlier this year, Riyadh sent hundreds of tanks and soldiers to neighboring Bahrain to support the crackdown on anti-regime protesters. [/release] [URL="http://www.presstv.ir/detail/199999.html"]Sauce[/URL] Kind of ironic how US supported country is using modern US weaponry to help suppress civilian populations and the US will take no action against this.

are those spikes on the tanks? badass

[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;32382710]are those spikes on the tanks? badass[/QUOTE] I'm hoping it's just a mine plough and it doesn't have more vicious uses related to crowd clearing.

[QUOTE=bunnyspy1;32382710]are those spikes on the tanks? badass[/QUOTE] [img]http://kofler.dot.at/40k/units/Chaos_Marine_Predator.gif[/img] First thing that came to mind.

I thought the same thing but I had no picture of it

Of course people will cry "America, why you no help us?" Then when the US (or the UN) goes to help: "America, why you always in everyone's business?" It's not like the US even has the ability to step in here unless people want a massive war.

The problem is that, if we do anything, we're essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. I know that thinking in terms of oil is a horrible thing, but let's be practical about the situation. The Arab kingdom of Saudi Arabia supplies the United States with 1,530,000 barrels per day. We lose that, and the price of gas goes shooting through the roof. What happens to an already destabilized economy when the average American cant afford to buy gas to go to work? Of course, in term of humanitarianism, what happens when we preach and preach about freedom, but then do nothing about a nation crushing it's own people down and accepting another nations assistance? How can we say that we helped the Libyan people for motives other than oil when we don't lift a finger to help the Syrians?

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32382651]. Kind of ironic how US supported country is using modern US weaponry to help suppress civilian populations and the US will take no action against this.[/QUOTE] I'd be surprised if the US government didn't give a greenlight for this, as well as the Bahrain action. Since Yemen has been named as a new terrorist hotspot, I doubt the US wants to see lawlessness there such as in Somalia. The US government has a long, sad history of supporting ANYONE as long as it is perceived to be in US interests. The Shah in Iran, with his brutal secret police, is one example from the past.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;32383129]The problem is that, if we do anything, we're essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. I know that thinking in terms of oil is a horrible thing, but let's be practical about the situation. The Arab kingdom of Saudi Arabia supplies the United States with 1,530,000 barrels per day. We lose that, and the price of gas goes shooting through the roof. What happens to an already destabilized economy when the average American cant afford to buy gas to go to work? Of course, in term of humanitarianism, what happens when we preach and preach about freedom, but then do nothing about a nation crushing it's own people down and accepting another nations assistance? How can we say that we helped the Libyan people for motives other than oil when we don't lift a finger to help the Syrians?[/QUOTE] Afaik the average american can afford gasoline to go to work.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;32383221]I'd be surprised if the US government didn't give a greenlight for this, as well as the Bahrain action. Since Yemen has been named as a new terrorist hotspot, I doubt the US wants to see lawlessness there such as in Somalia. The US government has a long, sad history of supporting ANYONE as long as it is perceived to be in US interests. The Shah in Iran, with his brutal secret police, is one example from the past.[/QUOTE] If that's the case, if we DO intervene, it could turn out like Iraq. "Hey America, thanks for helping/manipulating us against these Soviets and giving us weapons, now let's use them on you!" [editline]19th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=doonbugie2;32383261]Afaik the average american can afford gasoline to go to work.[/QUOTE] He said that the average American won't be able to afford gasoline if we get cut off from Saudi Arabia...

America will help create another government in a foreign country that will inevitably turn against it.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32382651] Kind of ironic how US supported country is using modern US weaponry to help suppress civilian populations and the US will take no action against this.[/QUOTE] M60 Pattons haven't been in service for over a decade. And mainstay US forces saw them replaced long before that.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32383261]Afaik the average american can afford gasoline to go to work.[/QUOTE] True, but just barely.

We need more tanks to look like that.

I just noticed the "funny" tag for the thread, what the fuck?

The US shouldn't get involved, if anyone it should be countries that are more local (Arab league / African union / Europe etc). I don't understand why people always think that America are the only people who can get involved with other countries.

[QUOTE=Jsm;32383965]The US shouldn't get involved, if anyone it should be countries that are more local (Arab league / African union / Europe etc). I don't understand why people always think that America are the only people who can get involved with other countries.[/QUOTE] The Arab League won't care, and the AU is still standing by Gaddafi, so nope.

[QUOTE=GunFox;32383458]M60 Pattons haven't been in service for over a decade. And mainstay US forces saw them replaced long before that.[/QUOTE] They were last used in the Gulf war afaik.. I'd consider them modern as they are upgraded by the saudi's, but I understand you missed the AAV's I mentioned? [img]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/880/84590333.png[/img]

[QUOTE=rinoaff33;32383274]If that's the case, if we DO intervene, it could turn out like Iraq. "Hey America, thanks for helping/manipulating us against these Soviets and giving us weapons, now let's use them on you!" [editline]19th September 2011[/editline] He said that the average American won't be able to afford gasoline if we get cut off from Saudi Arabia...[/QUOTE] Alaska has some of the largest oil reserves on the planet and will only be tapped as a last resort.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32384093]They were last used in the Gulf war afaik.. I'd consider them modern as they are upgraded by the saudi's, but I understand you missed the AAV's I mentioned? [img]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/880/84590333.png[/img][/QUOTE] [B]Tanks[/B]

[QUOTE=Zambies!;32384026]The Arab League won't care, and the AU is still standing by Gaddafi, so nope.[/QUOTE] Of course they won't, but it doesn't mean the US are still the only people to be able to do anything.

[QUOTE=Apache249;32384194][B]Tanks[/B][/QUOTE] I did say weaponry... the media simplifies these things so 99% of earth can understand.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32384093]They were last used in the Gulf war afaik.. I'd consider them modern as they are upgraded by the saudi's, but I understand you missed the AAV's I mentioned? [img]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/880/84590333.png[/img][/QUOTE] I see no evidence that the Saudis have AAV's in their inventory. This is further enforced by the fact that the Royal Saudi Navy lacks any vessels capable of launching or retrieving a group of AAV's. The Saudis DO have M113's which perform exactly the same task, minus the amphibious capabilities, therefore they would be unlikely to purchase a bunch of shitty AAV's to launch off boats and they don't have to replace the much easier to maintain and upgrade M113's in their inventory. Nor can I find any evidence of them having reactive armor M60's, American mine ploughs, or American markings on their tanks. I do however notice a stark resemblance to our M60's: [img]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9525/tank1oi.jpg[/img] Meanwhile their M60's: [img]http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1102/sauditanks.png[/img] Bear little resemblance and their tank drivers wear different uniforms than the picture. Whiiiiich would make the photo pictured stock and not of the actual event at all. EDIT: And you rated me dumb. Smooth move, cap.

Those markings on the M60 do look non Saudi.

[QUOTE=GunFox;32384543]I see no evidence that the Saudis have AAV's in their inventory. This is further enforced by the fact that the Royal Saudi Navy lacks any vessels capable of launching or retrieving a group of AAV's. The Saudis DO have M113's which perform exactly the same task, minus the amphibious capabilities, therefore they would be unlikely to purchase a bunch of shitty AAV's to launch off boats and they don't have to replace the much easier to maintain and upgrade M113's in their inventory. Nor can I find any evidence of them having reactive armor M60's, American mine ploughs, or American markings on their tanks. I do however notice a stark resemblance to our M60's: [img]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9525/tank1oi.jpg[/img] Meanwhile their M60's: [img]http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1102/sauditanks.png[/img] Bear little resemblance and their tank drivers wear different uniforms than the picture. Whiiiiich would make the photo pictured stock and not of the actual event at all. EDIT: And you rated me dumb. Smooth move, cap.[/QUOTE] Okay, then who owns those armored vehicles since you seem to the expert on the Saudi military... They cant be american. I assumed the media would atleast provide a accurate image or one not at all. Also, ratings mean nothing...

M60's have the potential to become a whole lot more modern.... [img]http://www.irandefence.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=22819&stc=1&d=1216194676[/img] [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/5732759576_acaa201fef_z.jpg[/img] M60 upgrade kit.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;32383129]The problem is that, if we do anything, we're essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. I know that thinking in terms of oil is a horrible thing, but let's be practical about the situation. The Arab kingdom of Saudi Arabia supplies the United States with 1,530,000 barrels per day. We lose that, and the price of gas goes shooting through the roof. What happens to an already destabilized economy when the average American cant afford to buy gas to go to work? Of course, in term of humanitarianism, what happens when we preach and preach about freedom, but then do nothing about a nation crushing it's own people down and accepting another nations assistance? How can we say that we helped the Libyan people for motives other than oil when we don't lift a finger to help the Syrians?[/QUOTE] Yeah and if the US loses its oil in Saudi they're gonna go all Yom Kippur again and turn to us in Alberta because we have the secret stash.

Yemen is even more worse off then Syria, these countries really need a uprising. Instead the US and Nato help attack a country with 5 times higher gdp and proper civil services. "Libya that is". [QUOTE=rinoaff33;32382978]Of course people will cry "America, why you no help us?" Then when the US (or the UN) goes to help: "America, why you always in everyone's business?" It's not like the US even has the ability to step in here unless people want a massive war.[/QUOTE] People should just cry about Israel like they always do. :dance:

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32384805]Okay, then who owns those armored vehicles since you seem to the expert on the Saudi military... They cant be american. [B]I assumed the media would atleast provide a accurate image or one not at all.[/B] Also, ratings mean nothing...[/QUOTE] Is that so? Then why did the media say that these were the bullets that hit this lady's house? [img]http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/14/iraq_bullet_ii.jpg[/img] Is this accurate?

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32384805]Okay, then who owns those armored vehicles since you seem to the expert on the Saudi military... They cant be american. I assumed the media would atleast provide a accurate image or one not at all. Also, ratings mean nothing...[/QUOTE] They are obviously American. There are only a few nations which operate both the AAV and the M60. None of which are likely to have American marked tanks, and very few would have any of their vehicles painted in tan (as opposed to the default OD). American AAV's circa us using patton tanks: [img]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1839/aav7.jpg[/img] Paint scheme look familiar? It isn't quite tan. The picture is stock. [editline]19th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;32385542]Is that so? Then why did the media say that these were the bullets that hit this lady's house? [img]http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/14/iraq_bullet_ii.jpg[/img] Is this accurate?[/QUOTE] Was a slingshot involved? :P