I can't speak for France, Italy, and Spain, but the UK certainly are supporting it. A lot of the munitions dropped by Saudi Arabia on Yemen are of British origin.

We also have some odd policies regarding SA - the recent transfer of ownership of the UK Football (Soccer) club Newcastle United is shrouded in mystery because the UK government granted special secrecy to the incoming Saudi owners. No, this is not fiction.

There's a whole history of unpopular decisions regarding SA, and the wider UAE in general, in the UK. Many times trade (notably arms) sanctions have been called for and routinely ignored. E.g. when the tragic living and working (read: slave) conditions of much of the immigrant workforces were revealed.

I wasn't implying it was a complete list; if it were, presumably at least Iran needs a place on it too. However, the question was why we hadn't heard about it. The answer is because it is a shameful conflict that doesn't make the US look good in any kind of way, so it is just ignored by US media.

Yes, and?

This is not whataboutism, because the author is arguing that we wouldn't say France is supporting it. And if you agree, then it doesn't make sense to treat the U.S. differently.

Whataboutism would instead say something like: Well France is supporting it too, why are you focusing so much on the U.S.?

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages. In addition he armed the Saudi and other proxies with weapons to wreak havoc and genocide in Yemen. The Yemen story is like Obama’s grim reaper legacy in Libya (he even help create slave markets there), Sudan, Somalia, Africa and elsewhere.

The overthrow of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh by Obama which was the first step to destroy Yemen:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen....

It seems a bit disingenuous to claim Obama overthrew Saleh. The Obama administration originally supported Saleh, until massive protests made that support untenable — at which point they withdrew support. That's not exactly an Obama-initiated coup.

> Obama started the conflagration in Yemen. He overthrew their leader of over 20 years. He then bombed Yemen to the stone ages.

We're talking the same Obama who got a Nobel peace prize, right?

The same Nobel peace prize that Kissinger got:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger

The same Kissinger that the Clintons embraced:

https://www.vox.com/world/2016/2/12/10979304/clinton-sanders...

Kissinger continued to violate the signed truce after being awarded the Nobel.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1973/summary/

Obama has the distinction of being the only Nobel peace prize recipient to authorize bombing another recipient

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-p...

This part is great from the article:

Obama is commander-in-chief of the US military and therefore ultimately responsible for the AC-130 gunship that repeatedly bombed and strafed a field hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, a week ago.

Weirdly, the aircraft was almost certainly using a 40mm cannon made by Bofors, a company that was once owned by Alfred Nobel, the founder of the peace prize.

Two dozen people were killed, including three children. Among the adults were the staff and patients of the charity that runs the hospital, Médecins Sans Frontières. Doctors Without Borders, as it is also known, was given the Nobel in 1999 for its “pioneering humanitarian work on several continents”.

So a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President is being condemned for sending a gunship to kill the staff of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning charity using weapons made by the company that the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize used to own.