Congrats to the spanish for...

[theavonlady 2]

A few of the scuds fired by Iraq in the gulf War contained cement in the payload section.

Maybe that's what the captain meant.          

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Dec. 11 2002,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few of the scuds fired by Iraq in the gulf War contained cement in the payload section.

Maybe that's what the captain meant. <span id='postcolor'>

lol

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Searching is not the problem. Seizing and re-routing the ship including the cargo, THAT is the problem.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Dec. 11 2002,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Searching is not the problem. Seizing and re-routing the ship including the cargo, THAT is the problem.<span id='postcolor'>

The most likely reason being the Captains evasiveness and being less than truthful.

As soon as it is straightened out and proven that they are Yemen's.....send it on their merry way....[sarcasm]and tell the Captain to hoist a goddamn flag. They're 2.99 at Wal-mart for god's sake.[/sarcasm]

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok..on open waters whoever has the bigger gun is the law. sad but true. and furthermore that ship had absolutely no markings or flags, which could have aroused suspicion of Spanish Armada.

the problem here is that

1.N korea has been the one that defies even simplest international common sense. they blast a missile over Japan without even saying beforehand, attack S.Korean navy for nothing, make threats(mostly empty ) everyday.

2.S korea, Japan, and US is supporting N Korea to point where it can sustain itself. they had great famine and their agricultural production is dismal, so above 3 nations has been somewhat supporting N korea by sending crops. one of the underlying reasons is that by giving support, we can stop them from relying on arms export.

I wont' be surprised at the composition of crews on that ship. most North Koreans serve long time in military, and their gov't might have sent their sailors on this ship.

apparently they are really out of money so wasn't able to conceal the container deeply

[Akira 0]

And let us not forget the attempted production of nuclear weapons despite an agreement specifically saying that they WOULDN'T pursue them, in exchange for international help with food and energy.

[Akira 0]

The official, who asked not to be identified, suggested to Reuters that the Scuds would be released to Yemen if it had bought them from North Korea, despite Washington's belief that Pyongyang is a proliferator of dangerous military technology.

"Right now, the ship is carrying 'undeclared cargo'," the official said. "But if they (the missiles) become legal cargo, there is not much we can do. Weapons sales between two countries are not against the law. Only Iraq is forbidden (under U.N. sanctions) to buy weapons."

Like I said...they will be returned after proof of ownership.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

For those of you who seem to think that the Spanish siezed this ship because the US want's a monopoly on arms dealing, and/or just doing it to piss off North Korea, and Yemen:

First of all North Korea just admitted recently that it has a nuclear weapons program.  Second, Yemen is a well known terrorist sympathiser.  Add a suspicious cargo ship carrying SCUD missiles (keep in mind that Scuds are popular for sending nukes flying into the air), and you have yourself a pretty damn good reason to sieze the ship to take a closer look.  It's just common sense.  

Weather or not the Scuds will be returned to Yemen is not really the question.  I think we have every right to destroy them looking at the situation.

[Akira 0]

Yemen to get missiles back

Yemen says the United States will allow it to take possession of a shipment of Scud missiles seized on a ship from North Korea by U.S. and Spanish forces. Yemeni officials say the missiles were "meant for defense purposes only," a Yemeni news agency reports.

As I said. Yes yes I am sure the US is trying to corner the weapon market. *rolls eyes*

Now we will see if they really are "for defensive purposes."

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 11 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And let us not forget the attempted production of nuclear weapons despite an agreement specifically saying that they WOULDN'T pursue them, in exchange for international help with food and energy.<span id='postcolor'>

actually, it goes back a long time (94-95)

at that time, N korea did get inspection from IAEA, and was deemed to be not having chemicals or whatever, but one of things in Geneva agreement is that after initial check, N Korea will be supplied with something(either heavy water or food), but that did not happen since US congress at the time blocked it.

so N korea did not let IAEA inspectors come in for the second time after that.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Dec. 11 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But it is in the second Amendment! Yemen has the right to own missiles for self-protection. I mean look at the NRA Homepage there we learn that free weapons actually prevent far more crimes than they cause! Therefore FREE NUKES for Yemen (and another beer for Albert!.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO You have been spending way to much time in that gun forum

But, from what I reckon the fault is just as much, if not more, Spanish as US. It was the Spanish Navy that siezed the shipment acting on information from the US.

[Guest]

This however is insane: (from CNN)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier, U.S. officials had defended the seizure, saying it was consistent with a newly announced Bush administration policy to interdict shipments of arms capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. <span id='postcolor'>

Does the word 'international' mean anything to the Bush administration?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 11 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This however is insane: (from CNN)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier, U.S. officials had defended the seizure, saying it was consistent with a newly announced Bush administration policy to interdict shipments of arms capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. <span id='postcolor'>

Does the word 'international' mean anything to the Bush administration?<span id='postcolor'>

God damn it....I hate myself for this....

But I agree with Denoir on this one

Damn it...gonna go curl up in the fetal and suck my thumb

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

there is an international law for free waters and not only the US breaks them. Recently a few countries of the EU decided to ban all super-tankers with only a single wall from its waters. This however is illegal and they soon gotta pay a tremendous fine for that. Once again spain showed its political incapability. Instead of helping the poor people at the cost they develop nonesense regulations.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Dec. 11 2002,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is an international law for free waters and not only the US breaks them. Recently a few countries of the EU decided to ban all super-tankers with only a single wall from its waters. This however is illegal and they soon gotta pay a tremendous fine for that. Once again spain showed its political incapability. Instead of helping the poor people at the cost they develop nonesense regulations.<span id='postcolor'>

Not to mention that had Spain OR Portugal had allowed the damage tanker to dock as it had requested the current disaster could have been avoided or at least contained.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Yep, and what kind of environmental responsibility is this if you basically say: "we dont mind if your supertanker sinks, but please sink outside our borders. Maria Aznar and his delegation should pay a heavy price for this in the future elections!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Dec. 11 2002,20:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Dec. 11 2002,20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there is an international law for free waters and not only the US breaks them. Recently a few countries of the EU decided to ban all super-tankers with only a single wall from its waters. This however is illegal and they soon gotta pay a tremendous fine for that. Once again spain showed its political incapability. Instead of helping the poor people at the cost they develop nonesense regulations.<span id='postcolor'>

Not to mention that had Spain OR Portugal had allowed the damage tanker to dock as it had requested the current disaster could have been avoided or at least contained.<span id='postcolor'>

it's the captain of the tanker who refused to dock to avoid any further control and to pay for the docking time

[Akira 0]

The ship was dragged out to sea after both Spain and Portugal, to protect their fishing and tourism industries from further damage, barred salvagers from towing the Prestige into any of their ports.

And now it is slowly leaking under the waves. Thats great....

[ran 0]

wouldn't have happened anyway if the captain had first obtempered with the spaniards

and it's pretty hard to convey a ship that risks to brake in the middle of the sea at any moment due to bad weather and to make things worst

and i think that those small leaks are more easy to stop and to clean than a massive oil slick

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, offtopic offtopic