Tue 10 Dec, 2002 06:22 pm
News From Reuters
Now what to do, how can we allow North Korea to trade in arms while we go after Iraq will there be a world war on three fronts? Is our military capable of that? Will the public support it?
I have been vaguely aware of this story but I still haven't learned the details.
Well it seem that all that was on board were skuds but still N. Korea is very much a threat they need money and are willing to sell. I guess the threat of China keeps us out of it.
"You are either for us or against us" apparently only applies to non Saudi Arabs.
Selling weapons really isn't nice, selling missiles is dangerous for everyone.
However, it is not illegal to international law:
"The Missile Race In The Middle East"
Interesting as well:
"North Korea: Missile Chronology"
Excellent point, Walter. Why should the US or Russia or UK be able to sell arms to whomever they wish, and not North Korea?
Still, the story makes me nervous.
What if Iraq has put all their big weapons on unflagged ships and sent them to sea for an indefinite period?
My polisci-major housemate finds it all very wag-the-dog-ish, as do I. Very convenient.
According to the Spanish special forces who had originally boarded the ship, a large quantity of chemicals (not described) was also found--the chemicals and the Scuds were all laden beneath bags of concrete. If the chemicals were a harmless, ordinary shipment, one would wonder why it was necessary to "hide" them. The Yemeni government has stated that the weapons were not intended for export to a third party, and that they are needed for the defense of Yemen, and should be returned.
Never heard of a conservative poly sci major. Anyone?
The burning question should be, is North Korea assisting Iraq with dispersing its WMD's?
It would seem to be a case of do as I say not as I do. We export to our allies all manner of armaments. Yet we take a holier than thou attitude when someone else does it.
Can we or do we have the legal right to stop these shipments? If they were destined for a terrorist organization, based on our fight against terrorism we would legal or not. However, were they being sold to a foreign nation for it's defense how can we justify their seizure?
Holier than though? I still think it was just a way to have a good excuse at their disposal.
But, the U.S. holier-than-thou attitude really pisses me off....
I agree that putting them aboard an unflagged ship and hiding them under concrete doesn't spell out an honest scenerio. We only have Yemen's word that it is for their own use. It's still a dangerous world and we are always going to appear hypocrites in our foreign policy because it's designed that way. It requires a moral judgement by our leaders to determine whether seizing the cargo is warranted and I don't envy them as they're going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't. It doesn't help in having a foreign policy that increasingly makes us look like bullies who want to take over the world.
"The United States has allowed a ship carrying 15 Scud missiles and warheads to Yemen to proceed on its way after the vessel and its crew were detained for two days. "
BBC news website
Don't be surprised if it sinks before it reaches its destination.
If the vessel sinks or explodes on its way to Yemen this will be very good. But it would be better if the Spanish military installed special detectors on the vessel's cargo, that will enable surveillance of these missiles with help of satellites. If the shipment was intended for bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, it is of interest to reveal the ways the supplies reach their destination. This may also help to reveal either places where Saddam hides his weapons, or some Al Qaeda secret missile base, and to destroy these facilities by means of surprise air attack.
But from the other side it is impossible to ignore a possible cooperation of Iraq, Yemen and N. Korea, aimed to mislead the UN weapons inspectors. It is possible that N. Korea agreed to keep Saddam's missiles and chemicals on her vessels, and Yemen agreed to claim ownership of these items if such vessels are intercepted.
a) no seamen, neither military or civil, could have such thoughts.
b) possible is everything
c) even the US government spoke of "regarding international law".