UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:30 am

Seems that things in this upcoming war might get interesting, or rather more dangerous. What to do with N. Korea?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/10/ship.boarding/index.html

UAL747
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:38 am

Obviously we have to invade them, just like everyone else.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Super Em
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:39 am

So Iraq went bust and now our focus shifts to N. Korea. The distractions continue.
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:49 am

We're nuts, how'd I know you'd post something like that.....lol.

I doubt we are going to invade N Korea, Iraq, yes, but N Korea, no.

UAL747
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:00 am

Why did the Spanish intercept the boat so quickly? If they had let it be and just tracked it - we would have foudn where it was headed?

TNNH
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:07 am

The Spanish heard there were Jews on board TNNH. The EU demanded that the ship be impounded.

 Insane
Your bone's got a little machine
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:38 am

Nah, we won't invade North Korea. We'll just nuke 'em. Laugh out loud
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
TWAL1011
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:39 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:42 am

So Iraq went bust and now our focus shifts to N. Korea. The distractions continue.

So are you implying that the CIA planted those missles on that boat under a direct order from Bush? It's about the only thing that could support that B.S. you just posted.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:36 am

So are you implying that the CIA planted those missles on that boat under a direct order from Bush? It's about the only thing that could support that B.S. you just posted.

You have quite an imagination! I can't possibly see how you came to that conclusion.
Dear moderators: No.
 
TWAL1011
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:39 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:36 am

Well, I think the implication is quite clear. In order to distract, you need a diversion. No?
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:48 pm

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week called North Korea the "single biggest proliferator of ballistic missiles" and said the communist nation is "a danger to the world."

A danger to the world? Or a danger to the American military machine who because of North Korean missile sales is losing business which it thinks only it is entitled to?

President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, earlier this year called North Korea a "merchant for ballistic missile technology" and said Pyongyang was willing to sell the weapons "to just about anybody who will buy."

What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it?

"The North Koreans have been known to go around with glossy brochures about their ballistic missiles. They're stocking a lot of the world right now," Rice said.

So do American companies. Take a look at the literature available at various arms shows around the world, especially the salon held in Dubai. So whats the point?

On the other hand, it did not appear the Bush administration intends to take punitive action against Yemen, which has been cooperating in the war on terror.

Punitive action for what? Isn't Yemen fully entitled to buy military hardware for its armed forces?

Different people are needed in the White House I think. Or at least journalists with the balls to ask questions such as these is needed.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:19 pm

Different people are needed in the White House I think. Or at least journalists with the balls to ask questions such as these is needed..

Or maybe different posters who don't apologize for and kiss the asses of nations like North Korea and Iraq, even when caught red-handed with weapons that are not defensive. Amazing, how fast the usual crowd is on here to dismiss any culpability of North Korea, or even QUESTION why a North Korea "pirate ship" is delivering Scuds to somewhere in the Middle East or Africa.

At least, Aviatsiya, you didn't blame Pan Am for this one.
 
vafi88
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:32 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:28 pm

We talked about this in our Geography class....Well, America says no missiles and stuff, and tries to cut other countries from building/testing/exporting, while America builds/tests/exports them all of the time.....Go figure...
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:42 pm

Alpha 1

I do believe that Iraq needs to be disarmed (if he does still have WMD). But face facts, Saddam is no worse today than he was when he was being armed and openly supported by "the West". But I guess his digressions whilst receiving "Western" support were overlooked, as long as those digressions were taking out those evil Iranians.

North Korea is a different story.

You say that they have been caught red-handed with missiles which are not defensive.

Please do show me the international law which says that North Korea can not have offensive weapons. Because if there is such a law, what is America, Russia, China, Israel, UK, etc still doing with them? Add all of these countries to the "rogue states" list shall we?

I will now hear some arguments from various people citing old lines such as:

1) North Korea is using the missiles for blackmail
* Well inherently, that is what armed forces are for. You better not attack us because we have Weapon ABC. Or you better do what we say because we can do this to you with Weapon XYZ.

2) North Korea is aiming these weapons and threatening its neighbours in Asia
* Well, Japan, South Korea and American forces in those countries also have even worse weapons (read: nuclear) aimed at North Korea. So whats the big deal

Also, Alpha1, can you please show to me where I have blamed Pan Am for anything?
 
N202PA
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2000 9:44 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:05 pm

Also, can you please show to me where I have blamed Pan Am for anything?

Username: Aviatsiya
Respect Rating: 52
Posted 2002-12-08 07:48:36 and read 408 times.

How many of you know that Pearl Harbour was caused as a result of actions by none other than Pan American World Airways in the Pacific?
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:59 pm

HAHAH....yeah right. If that is what you came up with, you guys need to go back to school and learn the meanings of basic words in the English language.

BLAME

*To hold responsible.
*To find fault with; censure.
*To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.

CAUSE

*To be the cause of or reason for; result in.
*To bring about or compel by authority or force: The moderator invoked a rule causing the debate to be ended.

Using these 2 words in a sentence.

The aircraft crash was caused by the wing falling off. The blame for the wing falling off lies with the engineer because he forgot to tighten a screw.

So I ask the question again, please so me where I have blamed Pan Am for anything!!

Maybe I should wait until certain people pass their 3rd grade English class first though?
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:45 pm

Aviatsiya,

You're joking right? I'm not reading the above am I? You stuck your foot down your throat nearly to your stomach with that comment in the other thread, and now you're nitpicking on word selection? Goodness, this is definitely a new tactic in the history of the a.net discussion boards.

Oh, and nice insult at the end. Can you debate a little better than that? And yes, I did pass my 3rd grade English class.
NO URLS in signature
 
zauberfloete
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 7:07 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:51 pm

North Korea tried to smuggle medium range missiles to a country or an organization in the middle east.

What comes from the usual anti-us bashers:
"What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it?"

Wouldn´t you know it? Now North Korea just sold missiles to another country, and the ship transported this legal shipment.
Off course.
And because this sale and shipment was a legal one, they camouflaged it as a cement transport?
If that is legal trade why mask it with wrong papers?

"So do American companies. Take a look at the literature available at various arms shows around the world, especially the salon held in Dubai. So whats the point?" - oh really?
That is the normal way such deals are made?
I tell you what - when a US company sold Blackhawk helicopters to the austrian airforce, the helicopters arrived onboard a freight plane as "S70-Helicopters".
They didn´t arrive as a load of raw iron onboard a ship.

I think that issue shows that Mr. Bush was right in his axis-of-evil speech. And it shows more and more.......and that is it what really hurts some people.
 
Bizjets
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:11 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:44 pm

The aircraft crash was caused by the wing falling off. The blame for the wing falling off lies with the engineer because he forgot to tighten a screw.


I don't think the wing isn't the only thing that needs a screw tightning.

Mr. Aviatsiya, with that "unfortunate" comment, you have just been added to my Disrespected Users list.  Smile
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:23 pm

Aviatsiya, you have lost all credibility now. You posted on the Pearl Harbor post that the whole God damned conflict was the fault of Pan Am, which, in and of itseslf, was one of the lamest, dumbest and outright hysterical things ANYONE has ever typed on here.

But then you have the absolute balls to come on here and say you didn't do so? Grow up, will you? At least take some responsibility for things you type on here. You said that, and now own up to it, will you.

You're getting worse than Neil ever was on here-he'd say something, then a day later, he'd have all kinds of trouble recalling what he said, until it was pointed out to him in plain english. You've really killed your credibility to day, son.
 
ben
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 1999 9:27 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:26 pm

Mr. Aviatsiya, with that "unfortunate" comment, you have just been added to my Disrespected Users list


1. Since Mr. Aviatsiya isn't a know-it-all teenage armchair general, Im not convinced that he's going to be worried about a lack of respect from anyone here  Wink/being sarcastic

2. Id love to know how you lot are going to answer Mr Aviatsiya's question above: What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it? .....and why does the USA see itself as having to 'authorise' every arms deal before it can go ahead?

3. The government of the USA needs to learn some diplomacy skills: Firstly Iran and North Korea were about to normalise relations, everything was looking good and then came the "Axis of Evil Speach"... and now calling them a "Danger to the World"? Years and years of hard work are now down the toilet! for what? One friggin Bushism soundbite! How exactly is that going to make them do what you say? Spread peace and understanding? Help non-proliferation?

It's clear that the USA needs an enemy right now, to keep the arms manufacturers in business and to keep the normal everyday dumb people (who all have votes) under the impression that GW is a 'hero' for flighting all the evil in the world. Good on ya Dubya! Youre my hero too  Insane

The American economy NEEDS an enemy... and now you cant even find a good quality enemy like the Russians were.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:55 pm

Ual747 wrote,

'Seems that things in this upcoming war might get interesting'

Upcoming war? What upcoming war? Did I mis something?

777236ER wrote,

'The Spanish heard there were Jews onboard TNNH, the EU demmanded that the ship be impounded'

Hahahaha 777236ER, that's a classic, no more questions asked!

B757300

'Nah, we wont invade N.Korea we just nuke them'

Even if it is meant to be funny, this is a really sad thing to say.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
N202PA
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2000 9:44 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 12:08 am

The aircraft crash was caused by the wing falling off. The blame for the wing falling off lies with the engineer because he forgot to tighten a screw.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison to what you wrote. I think a more accurate statement would be the following:

"The drunk driver drove crossed the median and plowed into a school bus full of kids, killing five."

The cause of the deaths would be the drunk driver crossing the median (or, in the case of WWII, the actions that you allege PA took). The blame for the deaths would be placed on the drunk driver (or PA, according to the implication of your statement).
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:34 pm

As I read today, legally the US and Spain had every right to board and investigate the boat because it was, as the Spanish put it, a "pirate" vessel in that it had no official flag or formal national affiliation. Anyone could have boarded the boat. So that puts that issue to rest.

Next, I asked why the Spanish intercepted the vessel so far from Yemeni waters. That answer was also provided today. This was undetaken allow the Yemenis to save face. If the US or Spanish intercepted the boat 10-50 miles off the Yemeni coast - it would be a clear slap in the face to Yemen. By intercepting it near Yemen but possibly en route somewhere else, the US gave the Yemenis the chance to deny it.

Why one might ask? Quite simply, Yemen has becoming an important American aly in the War on Terror and while US-Yemeni relations have rocky in the past, the US has no interest in ruining them further. Yemen has long been a safe haven for Islamist terrorists - everyone from Al Qaida to Hamas - the US and aparently the current Yemeni government have an interest in changing this.

So, the US stopped the ship, Yemen first denied it, then after high-level consultations admitted it was their arms, and the US in the interest of maintaining friendly ties between the two, allowed the ship to sail on to Yemen.

The scuds are expected to be used for the Yemeni military - despite their promises to the US this past February (when the US intercepted Scud parts en route to Yemen) they would make no efforts to acquire the missiles or build a Scud missile program.

Interesting developments. Let's hope US military inteligence keeps a close eye on these weapons. I have a fealing Israel will too.

TNNH
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:23 pm

What is the big story? It was a legal deal and the ship is on his way to Jemen.
End of the story ...
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
zauberfloete
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 7:07 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:44 pm

It was not a legal deal, because a legal deal is not covered by hundreds of sacks of cement. The load was declared as cement, not as "Medium Range Missiles", and that for a reason.
The ship was allowed by the the intl. alliance forces to continue its travel to Yemen, due to diplomatic reasons. The US diplomats didn't want to risk the relationship with the yemenite government over that issue.
But that doesn't mean that this was all legal. Not every gangster that isn't cought is therefore doeing legal business.
There is no need to cover a completely legal business the way that happened here.
So the big story is: It was one of many covered missile deals north korea did.
North Korean Government has once more shown that it is not only a threat to its own population, but to the world as well...
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:28 pm

What's the big deal?

1. The ship was unregistered.
2. The cargo was registered as cement.
3. The scuds were hidden in concrete.
4. If this was a legal transfer, they wouldn't have gone to all the above trouble.

Seems like a simple situation to me. The Spanish and Americans had every right to do what they did here. No debate here at all.
NO URLS in signature
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:57 pm

CNN:
"There is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.



Zauberfloete/Tbar220. Hide something legal doesn't make it illegal.

Tbar220, what do you mean with "the ship was unregistered"? There was no flag on it but as far as I know it was registered.
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
zauberfloete
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 7:07 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:21 pm

Anyway you slice it - you don't hide something that is legal with that effort.

That Mr. Fleischer said it that way is of no surprise at all, the US diplomats don't want to provoke the government of Yemen.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:43 pm

Saddam is no worse today than he was when he was being armed and openly supported by "the West"

The only nation, Aviatsiya, that has openly armed him from "The West" is France. All the rest of his support/arms are Soviet/Russian/Chinese. He received minimal backing in the Iran-Iraq War, nothing else. Get your facts straight-what you say is not supported by the facts or history.

Swissgabe, again, your naivete is pretty remarkable. It was a hidden shipment. Why hide it if it was a "legal" deal? Obviously, the U.S., and the Spanish are now satisfied that the deal poses no threat to U.S. or coalition troops, and the shipment is to be allowed, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the U.S. is watching Yemen very closely now, and if they pull another stunt like this, the next time the ship will not be impounded-it will be sunk.
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:53 pm

Alpha 1 (and Zauberfloete fyi)

Read it again:
"There is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. (CNN)

So I really wonder who of us is the naive guy. I only said that what Mr. Fleischer said means that it is NOT illegal. If you say it was or if you feel a need to discuss why the hide it, why call me naive? If you don't agree to what I said, call your government or your self naive, but not me.
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:50 pm

"There is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. (CNN)

Swissgabe, that still begs the point, and you keep missing it: WHY WAS THE SHIPMENT BEING HIDDEN? Fine, they're allowed such shipments, but if that's the case, why was it hidden and lied about by all parties concerned? That's the point that has people baffled. And because of it, Yemen is now going to be watched very carefully. You don't lable Scud's "cement" unless you're hiding something.

..why call me naive?

Because the point of all this is flying right over your head. Again, WHY WAS THE SHIPMENT HIDDEN? Answer that for me, if you will?
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:07 pm

Alpha 1
I think it is in your nature always to have the last word. I refer to my last sentence.

cheers
Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:41 pm

That last sentence made no sense whatsoever Swissgabe. None at all, so why should I refer to it? It has no bearing on anything.

Cut to the chase, here are the facts: a disguised shipment headed to Yemen was intercepted. No flag raised, the manifest was false. Yemen then claims the weapons are for them. Then why is the shipment being hidden? The U.S. and Spain are now satisfied that the shipment is ok, but now, thanks to their stupidity, Yemen is being watched-again. What part of all this don't you understand, and what part makes the U.S. government "naive"?

Care to explain? And don't refer me to that sentence again-it's meaningless.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:30 am


What international laws prohibit Country A from selling Country B military hardware, if Country B is willing to pay for it?

None. The MTCR, as it stands is not a global law as such.

But remember, we live in an era, where the leaders of some countries believe they are more equal than the others. That they set the rules, which they themselves (but not others) can break at will.


So do American companies. Take a look at the literature available at various arms shows around the world, especially the salon held in Dubai. So whats the point?

The point is that American companies are losing business. The north Koreans and the Russians make the best military hardware and at quite affordable prices. Compare this to the expensive trash that their own companies churn out (like the $2bn a piece “Stealth Bomber” flying junk which is invisible only to their own radars  Laugh out loud, or the Missile Defence system which only hits targets which are aimed in its way  Laugh out loud !).

North Korea is guilty of many things which the Americans themselves are doing. Cases in point:
1: North Korea uses its WMD for blackmail.
Guess the nuclear-tipped Minutemans don’t exist! Guess MAD didn’t exist!


Wouldn´t you know it? Now North Korea just sold missiles to another country, and the ship transported this legal shipment.
Off course.
And because this sale and shipment was a legal one, they camouflaged it as a cement transport?
If that is legal trade why mask it with wrong papers?

This could have been done to prevent Intelligence agencies of countries opposed to Yemen from finding out. ALL countries do exactly the same kind of thing. Arms transfers, legal or otherwise are never done in the open.

Try again!


This was undetaken allow the Yemenis to save face. If the US or Spanish intercepted the boat 10-50 miles off the Yemeni coast - it would be a clear slap in the face to Yemen. By intercepting it near Yemen but possibly en route somewhere else, the US gave the Yemenis the chance to deny it.

Load of bullcrap! The Yemenis have PUBLICLY acknowledged that the shipment belonged to them, and have lodged a diplomatic protest with the US and Spain for this faux-pas. Yemen has every right to purchase weapons for defense (or offense) for that matter. The US has no business meddling in this region.

Why is the US crying foul now? North Korea has clandestinely supplied fully assembled Nodong missiles to Pakistan (which they call the Shaheen) in return for Nuclear Weapons technology. The last such exchange took place in April this year, and that too using C130 Hercule Transports of the PAF! This transaction was illegal, but you don’t hear a storm being raised? Then why so now?

I suspect that this incident was an attempt to sling mud at Saddam which failed miserably.

-Roy
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:11 am

Alpha 1, in regards to your retort to my statement. Please read what I wrote again:

But face facts, Saddam is no worse today than he was when he was being armed and openly supported by "the West". But I guess his digressions whilst receiving "Western" support were overlooked, as long as those digressions were taking out those evil Iranians.

"Support" can come in many more forms than just supplying weapons. Also, "the West" does not automatically (as you assume) to be America. But as you seem to be making an issue of it with your "get your facts straight" comment, please tell me if this is true or false?

1) America, Germany and France supplied Saddam with gas, weapons and planes in the early 1980s. All of which were used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War (which is why I made the comment about the "evil Iranians", and in Kurdish regions after the war.
2) Ronald Reagan organised loan guarantees to Saddam of up to $400 million and asked ExIm to guarantee a further $500 million
3) America (under Reagan) "provided export licenses for the purchase of American high technology, including laser-guided welding systems that were used for the construction of centrifuges that produce weapons quality uranium"
4) George Bush (the old one) provided loan guarantees of up to $1 billion to Saddam.

Even if 1) and 3) were false (which they AREN'T), then 2) and 4) alone indicates SUPPORT for Saddam's regime by 2 American presidents. Correct?

And this, after Saddam gassed a Kurdish village in the late 1980s.




From: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.....

Even William Safire, the right-wing, war-mongering NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, “Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator”.

Do a search on IRAQGATE on Google, and you will find a WEALTH of information which will allow you "get your facts straight".

Now, in relation to the topic. What North Korea did was not illegal. Yes, the Spaniards had every right to board this ship under international maritime laws. No, neither Spain or America have the right under international maritime laws to seize the cargo.

I had laugh at this: "While U.S. officials conceded such laws do not allow for the seizure of conventional weapons that are not banned by any treaty, they also argued the law does not explicitly forbid it." (from CNN.com). That is akin to saying that murder is not allowed, but there is no law which explicity forbids murder.  Laugh out loud

If anything will be learned from this whole "saga", North Korea will in future send all arms shipments via ships which fly the North Korean flag, and have markings on the ship which give no doubt as to the "flag" of the ship.
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:11 pm

Just to add some perspective, let me tell you how this incident has been seen in the media of one of the protagonists' countries (Spain) .
On one hand the media congratulates the Navy for the flawless execution of the interception of the rogue ship, clean and with no casualties on any side. On the other hand, they are not happy with the US, as this seems like a strange political gambit by the US and Yemen, but in which Spanish butts were risked.
In any case, the government seems satisfied with the explanations they have received from US officials (Colin Powell and others), though some sources say the Govt is a bit sour, as they knew that the ship was freed by the press and not through official means.

And to US bashers, this operation is not criticable at all, from a legal or any standpoint. The ship was sailing with no flag, with a false manifest, and besides before the impounding of the ship Yemen denied any knowledge of it or its missile cargo. So the decision to stop ship was correct, these missiles could have go to any fringe Arab or African organization.
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:09 am

Krushny

Nowhere on this thread has anyone "bashed" either America or Spain for boarding the ship. So your comment about US-bashers doesn't hold much weight in context of this thread, does it?
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:46 am

They do. Numerous posters have questioned what "the big deal was" and why the US was "meddling in the region".

Please re-read the thread a little more carefully Mr. Aviatsiya.

TNNH
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:53 am

Inded, Mr. Aviatsiya does so much bashing himself, that he can hardly notice when others do it. Seems really funny.

UAL747
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:56 am

TNNH

I read every post in detail on this thread after reading Krushny's comment about US-bashing. And in relation to what Krushny wrote about any country boarding the ship, it is true that no-one has criticised it.

The "big deal" comment was made by Swissgabe in relation to the brewhaha regarding North Korean missile sales, etc. Not of the boarding of the ship.

Indianguys comment about the US meddling in the region was made in relation to American objections about Yemen buying these missiles.

Read it in context, and you will see what I wrote is true.  Wink/being sarcastic
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:28 am

The point is that American companies are losing business. The north Koreans and the Russians make the best military hardware and at quite affordable prices. Compare this to the expensive trash that their own companies churn out (like the $2bn a piece “Stealth Bomber” flying junk which is invisible only to their own radars Laugh out loud, or the Missile Defence system which only hits targets which are aimed in its way Laugh out loud !).

I found this piece especially entertaining. Mabye you should expand your "wealth" of knowledge outside of your region.

IMHO, legal or not, the points brought up about this sketchy shipment are very valid. I guess it really just goes to show you what kind of "business" really goes down in these kind of area's, and that we must be keeping an eye open all around, not just Iraq.

-Tom
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:45 am

The point is that American companies are losing business. The north Koreans and the Russians make the best military hardware and at quite affordable prices. Compare this to the expensive trash that their own companies churn out (like the $2bn a piece “Stealth Bomber” flying junk which is invisible only to their own radars Laugh out loud, or the Missile Defence system which only hits targets which are aimed in its way Laugh out loud !).

LOL! Mock it all you want, but if you attack Pakistan, and they beg us for help, you won't be laughing at our stealth bombers, rather, fearing for the lives' of your country's armed forces.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers

PS-if you knew anything about military technology, then you wouldn't have made that comment. Those Scuds are pathetic compared to the Tomohawk cruise missile.

 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:56 am

Gee. I know nothing about military technology. B4E: You know everything!


Those Scuds are pathetic compared to the Tomohawk cruise missile.

Yeah Yeah. Whatever! Maybe thats why an overwhelming percentage of Tomahawks fired at bin Laden in afghanistan (during Clintons tenure) flamed out and fell before they could reach anywhere close to their target!

And mebbe the latest ABM successfully hit its target this round no? Or did it?  Laugh out loud

Gee. I really must learn about things "beyond my region"!

-Roy
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:36 am

From the sounds of it, mabye you do as you come off very biased sounding. With that I don't think anyone should take you very seriously.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:37 am

"Compare this to the expensive trash that their own companies churn out (like the $2bn a piece “Stealth Bomber” flying junk which is invisible only to their own radars Laugh out loud.."

You might want to ask the Iraqis and the Serbs why they didn't shoot back if these aircraft were so visible...

Staffan
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:04 pm

Gee. I know nothing about military technology. B4E: You know everything!


Those Scuds are pathetic compared to the Tomohawk cruise missile.

Yeah Yeah. Whatever! Maybe thats why an overwhelming percentage of Tomahawks fired at bin Laden in afghanistan (during Clintons tenure) flamed out and fell before they could reach anywhere close to their target!

And mebbe the latest ABM successfully hit its target this round no? Or did it?

Gee. I really must learn about things "beyond my region"!

-Roy


I don't know everything about military technology, but you sir have just demonstrated your total lack of knowledge on the matter. I don't know where you got the cock-a-many idea that those tomahawks ever flamed out, but I can tell you, they hit the targets assigned (albeit poorly chosen...thank you Mr. Clinton  Insane ). Let's compare that to the Iraqi scuds that were pretty much only useful as a psychological weapon on Israel (meant to destroy the Arab coalition).

ABM's latest rounds in July did infact hit their targets. Now, your statement that they only hit targets fired at them, is, well, stupid. The so-called "threat" missile is fired first, then the defensive one is fired.

Am I detecting a hint of jealousy, being that India can't produce any decent military technology on its own without the help of Russia?

B4e-Forever New Frontiers
(Commander of the 95th Illinois Cut'n'Paste Brigade)

PS-fix your spelling, you do realize that you have credibility that can now be measured with negative integers do you?
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:10 pm


ABM's latest rounds in July did infact hit their targets. Now, your statement that they only hit targets fired at them, is, well, stupid. The so-called "threat" missile is fired first, then the defensive one is fired.


The last such test was held the day before. It failed.


Am I detecting a hint of jealousy, being that India can't produce any decent military technology on its own without the help of Russia?

India does have joint venture's with a number of countries like Israel and Russia. But a growing percentage of India's military production is of indegenous design.


PS-fix your spelling, you do realize that you have credibility that can now be measured with negative integers do you?

What wrong with my spellings? And i dont need a US public school type a**hole teaching me spelling!  Laugh out loud


I don't know where you got the cock-a-many idea that those tomahawks ever flamed out, but I can tell you, they hit the targets assigned

Oh really? So you havent heard about the Tomahawks that flamed out midway and fell over Pakistan killing civilians in the Baluchistan province? Or was that bit censored?
 
Guest

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 pm

Let me ask you all one question. You have been threatened with a missile strike against you, which would you prefer hit your house (with you inside)? A Scud or a Tomahawk?

Who, in all honesty, gives a fat rat's clacker which missile is better? All missiles are designed for 2 purposes; to kill and to destroy. And that in itself makes the whole idea of debating which missile is the best quite childish.

Boeing4Ever, before you preach to others about their spelling please check your own spelling and grammar. The word is spelt Tomahawk, not Tomohawk. Also the sentence in which you preach to Indianguy about his spelling in not grammatically correct, in particular the "do you" at the end of your "question". Under normal circumstances, I don't nitpick about people's spelling, because inherently I make mistakes also, but it seems that every time someone takes a pot shot at someone else for their spelling, 99% of the time they have spelling mistakes in their pot shot!
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: N. Korean Ship Carrying Scud Missiles

Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:22 am

Duh..........the reason you hide missile shipments is so your enemies cannot destroy your very expensive recent purchase!

Transporting brand new missiles in a ship painted with the words "THESE ARE OUR BRAND-NEW, VERY EXPENSIVE MISSILES" and flying a large Yemeni flag gives a green light to every anti-Yemeni terrorist who holds a grudge against the anti-Terror Yemeni government to blown that ship up!

I don't understand, when most NATO shipments and troop movements are done under the cover of darkness, do you confuse 'covert' with 'suspicious'?

And it also seems that all US and western weapons are 'defensive' whereas those of other countries are 'offensive'.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], L410Turbolet and 10 guests