BREAKING NEWS: Scuds found on North Korean ship

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2002 @ 05:49 PM
link   
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 U.S. and coalition forces Tuesday boarded a North Korean freighter in the North Arabian Sea loaded with about a dozen Scud missiles, U.S. officials told NBC News.....

www.msnbc.com...




posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 07:32 AM
link   
And to top it off the Yemeni government is claiming the Scubs were heading to their Army and they want them back!! No full story yet, I just sas this as "breaking news" on CNN.com



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Scud missiles seized in Arabian Sea

United States experts are examining a ship in the Arabian Sea after it was stopped by two Spanish warships and found to be carrying concealed Scud missiles.

news.bbc.co.uk...

nothing ground-breaking. personally i don't see what gounds they had to stop the ship. the trading of weapons is perfectly legal, and britain and the US do it all the time.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 07:46 AM
link   
exactly



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 07:48 AM
link   
"US officials said the missiles were similar to ones used by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War - but a senior State Department official said there was no evidence that they were destined for Iraq. "

I love that. these weapons aren't destined for Iraq, they have nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq isn't linked to them whatsoever, but lets just plant that little Iraq sead so that everyone remembers who the enemy is and who used these things in the past.

is it me or is the US getting terribly slap dash with their "we have to bomb Iraq" propaganda, its not even subtle any more



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The missles were purchased on a contract "signed some time ago" by the Yemeni Government. They are loging formal complaints with both the Spanish and the American governments.

www.msnbc.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

In an interesting note on the contrast of the two articles, the BBC ones mentions not a word about Iraq or al-Qaida, whereas MSNBC mentions both.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:17 AM
link   
That's way too dangerous having Scuds in Yemen, they're within miles of US Soldiers. If they get into the wrong hands....



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
"US officials said the missiles were similar to ones used by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War - but a senior State Department official said there was no evidence that they were destined for Iraq. "

I love that. these weapons aren't destined for Iraq, they have nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq isn't linked to them whatsoever, but lets just plant that little Iraq sead so that everyone remembers who the enemy is and who used these things in the past.

is it me or is the US getting terribly slap dash with their "we have to bomb Iraq" propaganda, its not even subtle any more



As usual, it's just you...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:21 AM
link   
MM,These days everywhere is within miles of US soldiers.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:22 AM
link   
AR, why do you even make such posts? they're pointless. give it a rest. lupe was at least making a point.

MM, are you suggesting that this is grounds for stopping the ship, or merely pointing out the proximity of the weapons to US troops?

- qo.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The most recent NPR report said that in addition to finding the 15 intact SCUD missles, they've also found parts to construct several other SCUDs.

(for the rest of you guys, SCUDs are short range ground-to-ground missles. Not long range stuff.)

QO, the reason for stopping the ship was that the official registry had some wonky things about it... and the ship's name had been painted out. This is enough of an excuse to stop them in international waters.

Two Spanish destroyers intercepted the ship and boarded her.

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I'm sorry, didn't think I needed to explain myself in so much detail. I was simply answering Loopy's question. He asked ... I answered. My point is, I disagree with Loopys characterization of American "propaganda". I simply did it in a less wordy format....


Next question, please...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Legally in international waters no one has the right to stop you as legally no one has jurisdiction.If a ship enters territorial waters and it then contravenes the laws of that country then that country does have the right to stop and search a ship.International waters as far as my understanding goes are free.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The most recent NPR report said that in addition to finding the 15 intact SCUD missles, they've also found parts to construct several other SCUDs.

(for the rest of you guys, SCUDs are short range ground-to-ground missles. Not long range stuff.)

QO, the reason for stopping the ship was that the official registry had some wonky things about it... and the ship's name had been painted out. This is enough of an excuse to stop them in international waters.

Two Spanish destroyers intercepted the ship and boarded her.

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by Byrd]


True, and in addition, according to the BBC andother news sites, the crew refused to identify themselves and their vessel, and said the cargo was only cement. This was partially true, as the missiles and missile parts were HIDDEN under a load of cement...hmmmm...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I think this is just demonstrative of the "heightened level of security" America is currently (and quite possibly perpetually given the nature of the "war against terror" ) under

For all practical purposes America is at war. Or is at least behaving as though it is at war, it simply hasn't officially declared war.

As such its current practices do theoretically allow it greater legal freedom to do pretty much anything it likes in order to win that war.

This includes locking people up without trial, "softening up" (bombing) countrys its not actually at war with yet and yes, I guess, stopping ships in international waters.

The UK does it routinely as well, we have sort of designated ourselves the police of the world, suspicious behaviour anywhere given the "state of emergency" will probably be dealt with as though it is on our home soil.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:58 AM
link   
QO, no, as Byrd stated, the ship was showing some suspicious activity by painting over the name of the ship as it was leaving, I think there was even reports that the crew lied to US personnel about their freight. Right now, the US is looking for the slightest screw up of Iraq so we can go to war, we may do so even without a legitimate reason



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I think that Q.O.'s point was that a foreign vessel short of actually endangering another vessel can legally do pretty much whatever it likes in international waters, its out of our juristriction.

we don't have the right to stop and search it unless we have good reason to believe its part of some plot against us and even then I don't believe we can actually impound or board it unless it strays into our waters.

It would be a bit like if this ship had pulled up next to our ship and tried to impound it for carrying guns.

again, I think above all else this is indicative of our staight of "heightened security"



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:06 AM
link   
1. There are no criminals locked up here without trial. There are prisoners of war being detained and treated fairly under the articles of the Geneva Conventions.

2. There is no "softening up" of Iraq with bombing. There are self defense counter attacks upon surface to air missile sites which fire on coalition aircraft patrolling the UN declared No Fly zones.

3. The United States did not stop and board the North Korean vessle in question. The Spaniards stopped, boarded, and searched it, found the missiles, and called the US Navy for assistance.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Lupe, if you consider counter attacking the SAM sites is "softening up Iraq" wait until the real bombing begins....



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Oh I know.
its going to be a very loud very expensive and primarily futile fire works display.

but yes, I'd say destroying a countries ground to air defence (and runways as far as I recall) before you've declared war on them is called softening up.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join