In late 2002, the U.S. Navy Intelligence community tracked a merchant vessel leaving North Korea and bound for the Middle East. More specifically, it was headed to Yemen --- the same country where the USS Cole had been bombed in a terrorist action just 2 years before.
We tracked the vessel for days. The decision was made to intercept the vessel and verify it's cargo. Spanish special forces boarded the ship and found missiles.
Several types of SCUD missiles, short to medium range, were found. The SCUD can be weaponized in unconventional forms which means it can deliver WMD. SCUD missiles can deliver chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear warheads.
A clear victory for the U.S., right? WRONG. Bush gave the missiles AND the ship back. Yemen got to keep their missiles and the vessel SoSan was allowed to continue on to Germany where it picked up precursor ingredients for CHEMICAL WEAPONS. It was then allowed to bring those precursor ingredients back to North Korea.
WMD? Sorry, wrong answer. If you've been shouting out your "yes" in support of Bush's supposed war against terrorism, then please provide me with an intelligible response to this error.
2006-12-19 02:32:42 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
mbs2.nospam: The ship had already been boarded and diverted to Diego Garcia. The act of war had already been committed. Bush was fine with that part. He didn't follow through. And while China is a concern, consider our EP-3. They shipped it back in pieces. You are right, though, about the international will.
brian L: Again, the ship had already been illegally boarded, seized, and diverted . I see the point that both of you are making, but again, we were already past that decision making point.
Misanthrope: The difference between the USS Pueblo and the SoSan is that the Pueblo was siezed in a combat zone during a time of war. It is ludicrous to think that North Korea could successfully launch a maritime interdiction campaign against U.S. interests.
mattinhoustonx: Was this a sarcastic response? The Spanish boarded at Bush's request.
Bottom line is this: Bush claims WMD as his probable cause for many actions. But he failed to follow through when a chance is arose. WMD is Bush's lie.
2006-12-20 03:36:28 · update #1
boarding a ship that is under the flag of another country while in international waters, is considered an act of war. since there was no embargo against North Korea at the time, NK could have used this as a pretext to go to war against the US and her allies (mainly South Korea and Japan). the real concern would have been that NK's ally the China would have joined in, and at the time we needed PRC to support us, or not veto us in the security council, in our plans against Iraq. remember it was China's involvement in the Korean War that forced the Alliance back to what would become the North/South border. make no mistake about it not following up on the SoSan incident was a huge blunder. perhaps if the pres had not been so busy focus in on Iraq we might have prevented some of the problems we're facing now. in truth it would have taken a great deal of international will (China, Russia and others) to deal with North Korea.
2006-12-19 03:17:14 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. 210 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
While I don't support Bush on anything in this case he did the right things. There is a huge loop hole in the Nuclear non proliferation treaty which Bush was trying to enforce at that time. Dual use materials and technology. Scuds are legal weapons for country to country sales. So Bush had to allow the missiles to go to Yemen. The precursor agents for chemical weapons have thousands of peaceful purposes as well and so you have to prove that the North Koreans intend to make WMD's out of them So again Bush had little choice but to let them go as well. If the North had shipped nuke warheads or WMD warheads then we could have kept the cargo.
2006-12-19 05:05:32 · answer #2 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I remember the incident, but thanks for providing details. My sense of reasoning tells me that if it is justifiable for the US to interdict and board N. Korean vessels in international waters, then it's just as justifiable for N. Korea to interdict and board US ships in international waters. This is reminiscent of USS Pueblo incident in 1968.
2006-12-19 05:51:33 · answer #3 · answered by Misanthrope 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush is not the president of Spain.
2006-12-19 06:16:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋