The Houthi's are in fact, attacking U.S. positions in the Middle-East, including U.S. Navy vessels.
To date, we've elected to only destroy their missiles in flight rather than at their source.
The fact that we chose to protect other flagged civilian ships in international waters and then conduct a half-assed mission was my objection.
It isn't as though the U.S. has no valid interests in maintaining international shipping routes, especially when those threats have actively engaged U.S. troops.
Most Freepers would insist they don't support A through D, but the U.S. foreign policy and military actions they support are aimed directly at helping to facilitate that whole charade.
The fact that we chose to protect other flagged civilian ships in international waters and then conduct a half-assed mission was my objection.
The fact that we chose to protect foreign civilian ships in international waters under ANY circumstances is my objection. In fact, I believe it may even be illegal under Federal law to do this.
It isn't as though the U.S. has no valid interests in maintaining international shipping routes, especially when those threats have actively engaged U.S. troops.
Here's my proposal:
1. The U.S. military will not protect any foreign civilian ships in international waters.
2. The U.S. military will protect any ship in international waters that meets all the requirements of the Jones Act as it applies to domestic transportation. Basically, this means U.S.-flagged vessels owned by U.S. companies, manufactured in domestic shipyards, and with U.S. citizens or resident aliens as crew members.