At What Point Do We Consider These Acts of War?
We already mentioned this week about the hidden nuclear facilities in Iran, holding no real civilian use, as if that is really a surprise to any of us. Now today we are receiving word that yet again, they are just plain shady and can't be trusted. We are at war with terrorists, and it's becoming more and more apparent that Iran is the little man behind the curtain, helping fund them and supplying their efforts:
The Huffington Post explains:
Israeli commandos seized a ship Wednesday that defense officials said was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons bound for Lebanon's Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas – the largest arms shipment Israel has ever commandeered.
The Israeli military said an Iranian document was found on board, showing that the arms shipment originated from Iran, although the paper was not shown to reporters.
"It's a cargo certificate that shows that it was from a port in Iran," military spokeswoman Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich said. "All the cargo certificates are stamped at the ports of origin, and this one was stamped at an Iranian port."
The Israelis boarded the ship before dawn in the waters near Cyprus. Israel has long accused Iran of arming its enemies.
As it stands now the Israeli has not shown the proof of the shipment of 60 tons of missles being sent from an Iranian port to reporters, or released their proof for the public to see, but if this stands as legitimate proof that Iran is indeed sending missiles destined to Hezbollah and being postmarked to Israel...
...Do we take the reins off of Israel and let them defend themselves for once and for all?
Factor in the probability that Iran is not-so-secretly produce nuclear weaponry and that in all likelihood those too would have a planned trip to Israel in the future... do we dare stand in Israel's way any longer, or just let them fight the war that is being waged upon them?
Permalink | tagged 60 tons, Acts of War, Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Iran, War, missiles, nuclear weapons, rockets, war on terror 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (26)
There can be no good foreseeable outcome to all this. If Israel takes action, the world will condemn it and Muslim nations will consolidate against them. The same for us.
On the other hand, if there is NO action taken by either of us, the pending consequences could be devastating destruction and turmoil.
It's time for the U.S. to stand up and be the ally to Israel that we're supposed to be. It's time for us to give Iran the final ultimatum.
Assuming that the documentation is legitimate, I'd say that a blockade might be in order...and there's a slew of support for such things in the UN effort against the arms trade.
My biggest concern about Obama pre-election was that he would be too weak internationally and invite aggression. One reason I preferred Hillary as the democratic nominee was my opinion that she would be less of a pushover in foreign affairs (insert Bill Clinton joke here).
I had hoped that Obama would grow quickly to understand the gravity of projecting weakness to adversary nations and toughen up. That includes supporting allies who are threatened.
Now I fear that he has a plaque on his desk with the inscription WWCD? (meaning What Would Carter Do?).
I don't know that Obama "invited aggression" in this case, Duff; we've known for years that Iran was supplying Hezbollah.
So, let's ask this question - what should the US do? I keep hearing "we need to support Israel," but what specific steps would you guys recommend?
I confess I don't even know what's that partiicular gibberish is supposed to mean. What "reins"? Who's stopping them from defend[ing] themselves? How, exactly, is the US "standing in Israel's way"? ? When did the US ever constrain Israel?
I also confess to initially misunderstanding this post; I thought skinny was asking whether it constitutes an act of war when commandos seize and board a cargo ship on the high seas. But not so much, eh?
What's with the constant "Hurry up and bomb somebody" foreign policy?
Last I checked Israel is a small country with a population of around 7.5 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions of arabs, egyptians, persians and many other ethnic groups that hate their guts. Not a smart fight to pick if you ask me as Isreal not only doesn't have a military of sufficient size to occupy Iran, I don't even believe that they have the capacity to get their troops there.
And btw 1.5 million of that 7.5 million are arabs.
They've done it plenty of times in the past.
Not since the advent of OPEC they haven't. OPEC done made all those little countries around Israel as rich as hell now. They can afford their own weapons and armies.
Does Winston not own a television? We, as have the UN, have interfered with Israel on numerous occasions. We got in the way when they were defending themselves against Hezbollah, who was launching missile after missile into Israel, killing many. We interfered in Gaza, pleading for them to back off. We recently had a former Carter Security Adviser state that President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them. We certainly haven't been there to offer our complete support.
But why bother explaining this to the person who views this as Israeli aggression? You have to be pretty high ranking in the whack-a-doodle army to come up with that perspective. Everybody salute Major General Winston.
It's to the point now that instead of us standing side-by-side with Israel in the war on terror, as George Bush promised we would, to now "we won't stand in the way if Israel chooses to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities." It's a step in the right direction, and better than our position was for far too long, but it's still not standing side-by-side with our ally.
If this story holds true, we are just as much at risk as Israel. As are Britain, France, Japan and so on. No liberal spin will change any of that.
Actually they have...numerous times, in fact, since 1960.
OPEC didn't become an international force until the 1973 Oil Embargo which sent the world economy aflutter. That is also the period for which oil prices began to rise and make these countries rich as hell.
Since that 1973 oil embargo Israel has always walked a bit more softly than it did before the embargo. And it continues to walk even more softly.
I'm trying really, really hard to imagine some whackadoodle parallel universe in which the US actually "interfered with" and "got in the way of" Israel. If only that were true, my friend. If only.
Instead there doesn't seem to be anything Israel could do that could ever jeopardize the nearly two-billion-dollars in weapons subsidies we ship every year.
I guess Beefcake was disappointed the US didn't dispatch the Dallas Cheerleaders and their pom-poms to celebrate invading Lebanon.
Ha ha... he wrote whackadoodle like it was whack-a-mole....
... I can't wait to hit him on the head tomorrow with a hammer.
(I work with BEEF, so I'm entitled to give him all the shit in the world)
Although I do have to slightly agree with him. In a sense Winston, you are correct... we haven't held up a sign and said stop with anything Israel has been doing to protect themselves, however our nation has jumped on board with the statements and pleas given by the UN and other international agencies. We have not outright demonized them... but have certainly hinted at the notion that they should feel guilty for their actions. We seem to fold in our support, time and time again, when it comes to the opinion of the international and we feel pressed to stand by either them or Israel, and Israel usually draws the shortest straw.
As in the link you pointed to and how they bring up the international community... yes, both sides killed civilians, but who really started that war. It was started by Hezbollah, and to many people that side with Israel that was blatantly obvious. On the flip side, Hezbollah and their allies blame Israel because... well, they're "dirty jew bastard dogs" in their minds, because their enemies have a complete hatred and prejudice towards the entire race.
You want to know the one negative thing I have with religion?
Groups who think they know God and what he wants better than any other...
... in the end they become extremely destructive people over an assumed pretense.
This whole issue is one giant holy war, and there's not a thing that will stop it... minus war.
It's been going on for centuries upon centuries, and it's proven everyday it won't stop.
In a more civilized nation, people are capable of disagreeing and having a somewhat rational conversation, but in terms of Hezbollah they prefer to destroy an enemy they hardly know or understand because of a hatred they've been raised on. They attacked Israel, killed their innocent civilians and children and in doing so... Israel struck back. When they did, media outlets were there in the line of fire, deep in the heart of Hezbollah, showing all the destruction Israel was causing... as if they had nothing to do with it in the first place. Oh the f%$#ing humanity.
I can't stand people who pick a fight and then run and ask for sympathy. If one is willing to take the life of an innocent person, then retaliation should be the assumed response. If they can't take the retaliation (in this case return fire and possible death) they should have the common sense not to partake in the acts in the first place. You can't cure stupid, but you can surely blow the shit out of it with a Merkava MK4.
Instead, they tried to tug on the heartstrings of a sycophan..... uh, I mean sympathetic media who was too willing to take the word of an enemy, in an attempt to get leniency from their inevitable defeat. In the end, that was successful. The international community started to lack the strength to carry on and they dragged us along, hoping we could talk some senselessness into them. It was a shame, for we should have let Israel beat the living shit out of Hezbollah until there was nothing left but their stories in history books, and we should have been helping them.
You'll have to pardon me, for I have a slight hatred for terrorists, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Ahmadinejad and anybody else that wants to watch us or our allies burn. I have no sympathy, and would shed no tears seeing them destroyed...
I'd consider it a good thing for humanity's sake.
And bravo to those Israeli special ops for sniffing this out.
. . . . and yet that two billion arrives every year like clockwork . . . imagine that . . . .
Can we you tell me, please, what freakin drugs are you people taking and where can I cop some?
Because anyone who says the US keeps leaving Israel out in the cold is talking some serious smack.
Can you say “fourteen to one”? Over and over and over again? I thought you could.
And please bear in mind, I'm not getting into the larger Mideast issues or who started some particular war or whose war crimes are worse.
I'm saying one simple thing: anyone who says the US is not a reliable supporter of Israel, a state to which it gives two billion dollars annually and has defended by vetoing, completely alone, literally dozens of UN resolutions passed by extremely lopsided majorites, is engaging in what Ed Schultz calls "Psycho Talk."
The notion that somehow the US must "take the reins off" Israel and "let them defend themselves" is grotesque. There are no "reins" on Israel, certainly not from the United States.
Winston,
In 1956 the U.S. stepped in and imposed a cease-fire on Great Britain, France and Israel in the Suez Crisis after the three nations formed an alliance to take control of the Suez Canal from Egypt.
So? What's your point?
Winston,
Well, you did ask, "When did the US ever constrain Israel?"
So, I guess your answer is: "fifty-three years ago" ?
From a historical perspective, 53 years isn't long at all.
Zoy, I'm going to decline to pursue this with you. I like and respect you quite a bit, and for a variety of reasons this entire topic (and the way I feel the Israel-can-do-no-wrong folks approach it) just makes me too angry to guarantee I can remain civil. So it's probably best we drop it.
Very sorry to hear about your pet.
Good call, Winston.
Speaking for myself alone, I feel the same way about the Israel-can-do-no-right people.
Those people have been around for centuries.
Duff, so do I.
Skinny, not sure which you mean by "those people," but I thought what you and I were discussing was something different, much more recent, and had to do with US policy. You say the US (somehow) actively blocks Israel from defending herself. I think beyond being just factually unsupportable, that's manifestly absurd.
And as Forrest G said, that's all I have to say about that.
Winston,
Fair enough and thanks for the condolences. I'm going to miss her.
Did I once say US policy did? or did I say we, as in collectively? It's a pretty broad term, however you make it sound like I was singling out something inparticular.
The UN is constantly blocking Israel. Your link only showed how and when to a ridiculous degree... so we get that. Because we stand by them isn't relevant, for as collective nations, many of which we consider allies, we continually vote against Israel.
Politically, how many times have we heard liberals yell... "the rest of the world hates us". Yet we're the only ones standing behind it, so what does that say about Israel? If anything, I can say angered leftism may drive much of the American decision on whether or not we stand beside them. Bush never gave a damn about their anger. With a liberal in office now, I can't say we'll be so confident.
Either Israel (and preferably we AND Israel) strike first, or we allow ourselves and them to sit and wait for the inevitable attack. No hopeor diplomatic solution will stop that. "Those people" (as in radical Muslims, terrorists, people who hate us, etc...) have been around for centuries upon centuries and they will not stop until they see them destoryed. As an ally, we too are included amonst those wishes... too many times you see our flag being burnt alongside theirs... and last I checked the people standing around chanting and cheering are outside that template I called "those people".
If you want to bicker over what I said or meant, be my guest, but I'd rather hear what the left's ideas are in handling Iran and their obvious allies (i.e. Syria, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc...), one that doesn't involve the absurd notion that sitting down and talking to them will suddenly get them to change their minds and intentions, because it won't. It never has and it never will.
That or we can nitpick over "we".