Reply With Quote
well of course this isn't your usual shipment. duh. wake up and take a look at what's happening. Israel is kind of AT WAR
-Mars
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...42-663,00.html
US to ship extra arms to Israel
Reuters
January 10, 2009 11:15am
THE U.S. is seeking to hire a merchant ship to deliver hundreds of tonnes of arms to Israel from Greece later this month, tender do ents seen by Reuters show.
The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) said the ship was to carry 325 standard 20-foot containers of what is listed as "ammunition" on two separate journeys from the Greek port of Astakos to the Israeli port of Ashdod in mid-to-late January.
A "hazardous material" designation on the manifest mentions explosive substances and detonators, but no other details were given.
"Shipping 3,000-odd tonnes of ammunition in one go is a lot," one broker said, on condition of anonymity.
"This (kind of request) is pretty rare and we haven't seen much of it quoted in the market over the years," he added.
The U.S. Defense Department, contacted by Reuters on Friday in Washington, had no immediate comment.
The MSC transports armour and military supplies for the U.S. armed forces aboard its own fleet, but regularly hires merchant ships if logistics so require.
The request for the ship was made on Dec. 31, with the first leg of the charter to arrive no later than January 25 and the second at the end of the month.
The tender for the vessel follows the hiring of a commercial ship to carry a much larger consignment of ordnance in December from the United States to Israel ahead of air strikes in the Gaza Strip.
A German shipping firm which won that tender confirmed the order when contacted by Reuters but declined to comment further.
CHARTERS "RARE"
Shipping brokers in London who have specialised in moving arms for the British and U.S. military in the past said such ship charters to Israel were rare.
Israel is one of America's closest allies and both nations regularly sell arms to each other.
A senior military analyst in London who declined to be named said that, because of the timing, the shipments could be "irregular" and linked to the Gaza offensive.
The ship hired by the MSC in December was for a much larger cargo of arms, tender do ents showed.
That stipulated a ship to be chartered for 42 days capable of carrying 989 standard 20-foot containers from Sunny Point, North Carolina to Ashdod.
The tender do ent said the vessel had to be capable of "carrying 5.8 million pounds (2.6 million kg) of net explosive weight", which specialist brokers said was a very large quan y.
The ship was requested early last month to load on December 15.
In September, the U.S. Congress aproved the sale of 1,000 bunker-buster missiles to Israel. The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world.
The Jerusalem Post, citing defence officials, reported last week that a first shipment of the missiles had arrived in early December and they were used in pentetrating Hamas's underground rocket launcher sites.
well of course this isn't your usual shipment. duh. wake up and take a look at what's happening. Israel is kind of AT WAR
-Mars
Matter of course. It needn't be, but it is.
A nice contrast is the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
Consider this: is the threat posed to Israel by Hamas now in any way comparable to that of Syria and Egypt in 1973, backed by the USSR? And what accounts for the difference in US policy concerning preventive war?The Israeli strategy was, for the most part, based on the precept that if war was imminent, Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike. It was assumed that Israel's intelligence services would give, at the worst case, about 48 hours notice prior to an Arab attack. Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, and Israeli general David Elazar met at 8:05 a.m. the morning of Yom Kippur, six hours before the war was to begin. Dayan opened the meeting by arguing that war was not a certainty. Elazar then presented his argument, in favor of a pre-emptive attack against Syrian airfields at noon, Syrian missiles at 3:00 p.m., and Syrian ground forces at 5:00 p.m. "When the presentations were done, the prime minister hemmed uncertainly for a few moments but then came to a clear decision. There would be no preemptive strike. Israel might be needing American assistance soon and it was imperative that it not be blamed for starting the war. 'If we strike first, we won't get help from anybody', she said."[22] European nations, under threat of an Arab oil embargo and trade boycott, had stopped supplying Israel with munitions. As a result, Israel was totally dependent on the United States to resupply its army, and was particularly sensitive to anything that might endanger that relationship. After Meir had made her decision, a message arrived from Henry Kissinger: "Don't preempt."[23] Had Israel struck first, according to Henry Kissinger, they would not have received "so much as a nail".
How times have changed.
This video might show the GBU-39s in action. Pretty amazing look at the precision.
phucking ridiculous...they need more ammo...? You've been countering toy rockets with F-16s! That evil country is nothing without our support
What country isn't evil according to sook?
countries that don't try to justify killing hundreds of innocent women and children, and countries that don't bomb U.N run schools or vehicles especially when the U.N is the reason they carry their acts of terror on a daily basis.
Gaza Resolution One-Sided and Unwise
by Rep. Ron Paul Editor's note: The following is Rep. Ron Paul's statement on H. Res. 34, "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S. interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?
As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the long-standing Israeli blockade of Gaza – a cruel act of war – and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.
There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.
Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Cons ution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
Its so sad that so many blow off Rep. Paul. Is he really the only man with an ounce of logic in the whole ing government? I'm beginning to think he is.
It's funny to think that if Ron Paul had been president during the 1930's and 1940's we would more than likely never have gone into the European theater in WWII. Isolationism is ok is moderation. He's still a nutcase.
Ron Paul's non-interventionism would've put him in the mainstream of the GOP in the 1930's and 1940's. He only appears insane from the perspective of the establishmentarian warfare-welfare state. In fact he represents one of the very last connections to a genuine American conservatism, one most contemporary conservatives have already forgotten.
I find it interesting, Shastafarian, that you resort to an ad hominem, rather than addressing the substance of RP's brief.
Do you have a substantive criticism here Shasta, or are you content to muddy the waters with bs counterfactuals and lazy ad hominems?
Ron Paul is racist.
See I didn't think it was that ad hominem since it was in response to what he said. He mentioned how it would make us look bad and why are we interfering at all. My hypothetical situation was a counter to his naive view of the world. I also think he's very anti-Israel. If we wasn't such an isolationist he'd probably be in favor of doing away with Israel as a country.
ing sad, we are more worried about them than us. We just opened ourselves up to a whole lot of hate from the rest of the world.
For the record, the British gov. + Ex pres Tony Blair thinks what Israel is doing is appalling and immoral. Just can't wait for Obama to yank all this aid to israel.
Why should this be the US's fight? Appears to me Israel has things well enough in hand without our help.
A few Hamas/Al-Aqsa/Islamic Jihad rockets don't threaten any vital US interests, and we're already giving Israel a massive amount of military aid. How then is it in our best interest to have a resolution of support for what is internationally regarded to be a massacre, from the US Congress? Is it even necessary? Mightn't it be counterproductive?
Trying to bring peace, security and democracy to the middle east through blockade, invasion and war is the naive view of the world IMO. It has already blown up in our faces, and it will in the future -- and our knee-jerk, automatic, 100% identification with Israel will have something to do with it.
Minding our own business and keeping our nose out of fights not involving us and avoiding unnecessary, entangling alliances -- was considered realism and prudence from the beginning of the republic until not too long ago.
Weak. This is absurd on it's face. If RP weren't non-interventionist and anti-imperialist, he wouldn't be RP. Not recognizably.
BTW, what makes you think RP is anti-Israel? Or is this just another way of smearing people who happen to disagree with US or Israeli policy?
I never said I agreed with the resolution or a need for there to be one.
Oh so I guess you think Israel should just talk to the people who refuse to acknowledge they exist.Trying to bring peace, security and democracy to the middle east through blockade, invasion and war is the naive view of the world IMO. It has already blown up in our faces, and it will in the future -- and our knee-jerk, automatic, 100% identification with Israel will have something to do with it.
We're not in this fight. Are you saying we should never have an opinion on our allies and their dealings?Minding our own business and keeping our nose out of fights not involving us and avoiding unnecessary, entangling alliances -- was considered realism and prudence from the beginning of the republic until not too long ago.
Because everything I've ever read from him about Israel has been anti-Israel. Look I get it that you're a Ron Paul supporter, but it's very hard to tell where he stops and you begin.Weak. This is absurd on it's face. If RP weren't non-interventionist and anti-imperialist, he wouldn't be RP. Not recognizably.
BTW, what makes you think RP is anti-Israel? Or is this just another way of smearing people who happen to disagree with US or Israeli policy?
That's what the RP post was about. Thanks for weighing in on it. BTW, do you agree or disagree with RP about it?
They already are, through Egypt. So yes, why not? How else do wars end?Oh so I guess you think Israel should just talk to the people who refuse to acknowledge they exist.
Not at all. But perhaps there's a middle ground b/w complete indifference and blind allegiance.We're not in this fight. Are you saying we should never have an opinion on our allies and their dealings?
I agree with about 50% of what RP says. For me, that's a pretty high ratio. I don't fit the pigeonhole as nicely as you'd like Shasta, but yeah, RP is appealing to me.Because everything I've ever read from him about Israel has been anti-Israel. Look I get it that you're a Ron Paul supporter, but it's very hard to tell where he stops and you begin.
I agree that it's not necessary. However I'm not concerned with other countries hating us for it. They already hate us.
The problem is Hamas has a political wing and a military wing. The military wing will almost assuredly never negotiate face-to-face with Israel.They already are, through Egypt. So yes, why not? How else do wars end?
I would hope so.Not at all. But perhaps there's a middle ground b/w complete indifference and blind allegiance.
+1
one of the few things I have differences with RP in.
-Mars
WOW....did we change the power balance of this war?The Jerusalem Post, citing defence officials, reported last week that a first shipment of the missiles had arrived in early December and they were used in pentetrating Hamas's underground rocket launcher sites.
i would certainly hope so, Hamas is a terrorist organization.
-Mars
So is Israel
Some sources are saying that Israel rejected a Hamas ceasefire offer in December...
Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
By Gareth Porter*
IPS NewsWASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) - Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.
The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.
The Hamas officials insisted that Israel not be allowed to close or reduce commercial traffic through border crossings for political purposes, as it had done during the six-month lull, according to the source. They asked Suleiman, who had served as mediator between Israel and Hamas in negotiating the original six-month Gaza ceasefire last spring, to "put pressure" on Israel to take that the ceasefire proposal seriously.
Suleiman said he could not pressure Israel but could only make the suggestion to Israeli officials. It could not be learned, however, whether Israel explicitly rejected the Hamas proposal or simply refused to respond to Egypt.
The readiness of Hamas to return to the ceasefire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Centre, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire that had been in effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza".
<snip>
The Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment Thursday on whether there had been any discussion of a ceasefire proposal from Hamas in mid-December that would have stopped the rocket firing.
Whether you agree or disagree with any of today's conflicts, any comparison to American involvement in World War II is ridiculous.
We were outright attacked by Japan, then Germany promptly declared war on the US thereafter. Now, the course of events would dictate that the US was likely to become involved in both conflicts promptly after Pearl Harbor, but once Germany declared war, the nation didn't really have much of a choice.
None of our current conflicts are comparable. That's not to say that all of them are without justification - only the comparisons do not hold true.
It's not a comparison. I was using a hypothetical situation in which I presume to know what a real person would do in a manufactured situation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
