News
US and UK Military Strikes Against Houthi Targets in Yemen: Response to Red Sea Threats
(CTN News) – Following warnings from the Biden administration and its allies that the Iran-backed militant group would face the repercussions of their repeated drone and missile attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, the US and UK militaries responded by launching strikes against multiple Houthi targets in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen on Thursday.
Attacks by the Houthis on international ships in the Red Sea were “unprecedented,” according to President Joe Biden, who justified the strikes.
The president declared in a statement released by the White House that the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands, along with U.S. military forces, had carried out strikes against several targets in Yemen that the Houthi rebels had been using to threaten the freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most important waterways.
To further safeguard American citizens and ensure unfettered global trade, Biden promised he would “not hesitate to direct further measures as necessary.”
According to a statement from US Air Forces Central Commander Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, “deliberate strikes on over 60 targets at 16 Iranian-backed Houthi militant locations, including command and control nodes, munitions depots, launching systems, production facilities, and air defense radar systems.”
The military action involved coalition forces and the United States. His count put the number of precision-guided missiles used at over a hundred, he disclosed.
The strikes demonstrate the increasing global concern about the danger to a vital waterway. The continuation of Houthi attacks on international commerce forced the coalition to act, after the US had avoided direct strikes on Yemen for weeks due to concerns about escalating tensions in the region, which are already seething due to the Israel-Hamas war.
This is the first documented hit against the Houthis in Yemen, while the US has struck Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria since the war in Gaza broke out.
Fighter planes and Tomahawk missiles were responsible for the attacks. According to a US official who spoke with CNN, the Houthis’ persistent attacks on ships in the Red Sea were the reason behind the targeting of over a dozen locations by missiles launched from various platforms, including air, surface, and sub.
In this category were radar systems, locations for storing and launching drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.
A second US official confirmed that the attack on Yemen included the guided missile submarine USS Florida, which entered the Red Sea on November 23. The submarine, according to the official, launched Tomahawk land-attack missiles, just like the surface ships that were involved in the attack.
While he was unable to give a precise percentage of Houthi assets destroyed in the strikes, a senior military officer told reporters on Thursday evening that it was “significant.” To destroy the targets “and also to minimize collateral damage,” he said, using precision guided weapons.
Civilian population centers were in no way our intended targets. The official clarified that the goal was to target particular capabilities in particular locations using precise weapons.
Although preparations have been going on for some time, a senior US official told CNN that the Houthi attacks on Red Sea commerce on Tuesday were the last straw that led to Biden giving the US the go-ahead to launch Thursday’s strikes.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is still in the hospital after problems during prostate cancer surgery, which is why the strikes have occurred. The strikes were ordered and monitored in real-time from the hospital “with a full suite of secure communications,” according to a senior Defense official.
For weeks, Biden has considered the possibility of launching strikes against Houthi strongholds in Yemen in light of the growing Middle Eastern crisis.
He has been reluctant to authorize direct action out of concern that he could be more intimately involved in a growing confrontation, which US officials think could be Iran’s ultimate goal.
However, the consistent targeting of international trade lines in the southern Red Sea by the Houthis was deemed untenable by the White House. Because of the attacks, several of the world’s biggest shipping corporations have decided to circumnavigate Africa, which adds thousands of kilometers to their international shipping routes, rather than use the canal.
Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder stated that Iran “has a role to play” in urging the Houthis to cease their “reckless, dangerous, and illegal activity” in the hours leading up to Thursday’s strike. He threatened “consequences” if they didn’t.
For weeks, US Navy ships in the region have intercepted and shot down numerous drones and missiles launched by the Houthis, a Shia political and military group backed by Iran that is engaged in a civil war in Yemen against a coalition supported by Saudi Arabia.
According to Hussein al-Ezzi, the Houthi’s deputy foreign minister, Yemen was the object of a “massive aggressive assault.” Ahead of any US assault on Yemen, Houthi leader Abdul Malek Al-Houthi said in a speech he gave on Thursday that “much more” than targeting US ships at sea will be the response.
The Pentagon has not observed any signals of retaliation by the Houthis as of Thursday night, according to the senior military official.
According to a high-ranking US government official, additional measures may be taken against the Houthis.
The government official warned that this was far from the final statement on the matter. We will let you know when we have more to share and things to accomplish.
“If it doesn’t stop, there will have to be consequences,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned Thursday while touring in the region. And the worst part is that it still isn’t over.
Despite warning of “a lot of danger points,” Blinken stated that he does not think the battle in Gaza is becoming a broader confrontation. While in the area, Blinken paid a visit to Bahrain, which is the home of the Fifth Fleet and US Naval Forces Central Command.
During his visit to the Middle East, Blinken conveyed to regional officials the importance of viewing any military action by the United States against the Houthis as defensive rather than escalatory, according to a senior official from the State Department.
United Nations Security Council resolution passed by Japan and the United States on Wednesday denounces “in the strongest terms the at least two dozen Houthi attacks on merchant and commercial vessels since November 19, 2023” and demands “that the Houthis immediately cease all such attacks.”
The resolution was supported by eleven nations. Five did not vote, two of which were from Russia and China. According to a Western diplomat who spoke with CNN, the US did agree to some of China’s linguistic demands on the resolution.
The United States has carried out over 400 airstrikes in Yemen since 2002, as reported by the Council on Foreign Relations. Therefore, the current strikes are not unique.
Officials in Yemen have expressed worry about the potential consequences of attacking the Houthis. The Houthi attacks on commercial and merchant ships have been orchestrated by Iran, according to declassified US intelligence. Iran has even supplied details about trade vessels using the river.
An American official has informed CNN that the Biden administration regards the Houthi-Saudi truce as one of its greatest foreign policy successes, and the US is wary of disrupting the agreement if it takes direct action inside Yemen.
There were some in the US government who were worried that if they attacked the Houthis in Yemen, it would lead to a drawn-out confrontation between the US and the Iranian proxy group, something the group really wanted.
Despite Biden’s best efforts, the Houthis persisted in attacking commercial and merchant ships making their way through the Red Sea.
In a show of self-defense, US Navy helicopters shot down three Houthi boats around New Year’s, killing everyone on board. This marked a turning point in the conflict.
As a result of this first contact between American forces and the Houthis since the conflict’s inception, Vice President Biden called a confidential meeting of his national security staff while on vacation in the Virgin Islands to discuss the situation.
The Houthis “will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and free flow of commerce in the region’s critical waterways,” according to that joint statement made on January 3.
Biden and his team understood the remark would effectively commit them to a stronger reaction in the event that the Houthi attacks persisted—something that many officials privately suspected would happen—even though they didn’t call it a red line.
Hours subsequent to the joint statement’s issuance, the Houthis attacked commercial shipping channels using an unmanned surface drone.
Three destroyers from the United States Navy—the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, which is manned by Navy F/A-18s—and a destroyer from the United Kingdom, the HMS Diamond, shot down twenty-one missiles and drones on Tuesday, in what was arguably the biggest Houthi onslaught to that point. The attack did not result in any damage to ships and no injuries were reported.
After the missile barrage, a senior administration source informed CNN that Biden ordered his national security team to attack Houthi facilities in Yemen. An American military vessel was also attacked, according to the official. The attack was directed towards a US commercial vessel.
The strikes occurred on Thursday night after Biden ordered Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to respond.
At least 27 strikes have been carried out by the Houthis since November 19.While the US and its allies have been dealing with the Houthis’ continuous attacks, coalition and US forces in Iraq and Syria have been the target of at least 131 attacks since October 17.
Among these attacks were three that targeted installations associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other proxy forces.
According to an official, a member of the Iranian proxy group Harakat al-Nujaba had “US blood on his hands” in Iraq. The United States recently attacked this individual.
A large number of the commercial ships, however, have never been associated with Israel. Last Monday, US Navy Central Command Commander Vice Adm. Bradley Cooper stated that 55 nations are believed to have “direct connections” to the attacked ships.
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?