WMDs where inspectors can't find them

Undertoad · 02-20-2003, 10:49 AM

...At sea.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

Will longer and more drastic inspections work?

Not if the weapons aren't in Iraq.

(Rumors also have some weapons moving to Syria, the story notes, but these are just rumors. I'll just say this isn't the first time I've heard those rumors...)

wolf · 02-20-2003, 11:13 AM

Wow ... the international arms equivalent of parking your car in a different neighborhood every night to keep it away from the repo man.

I wonder if any of the months and months worth of satellite imagery that hasn't been analyzed yet shows any of the loading, or at least the truck convoys from 'suspected' weapons sites to the docks. That's the first place I'd look.

Uryoces · 02-20-2003, 06:29 PM

"Who are you?" ... "I say again, who are you?" ...

What ship? What oil slick are you talking about?

SteveDallas · 02-20-2003, 06:41 PM

OK... time for me to put on my "shockingly naive" hat.... which I seem to be wearing quite a bit lately...

Why haven't they nailed them for whatever violations of maritime law they're committing? If it's this easy to evade accountability just by leaving your radio turned off, it's a wonder we don't have piracy on the high seas.

elSicomoro · 02-20-2003, 06:50 PM

There IS piracy on the high seas...we just don't hear about it a lot here.

slang · 02-20-2003, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Will longer and more drastic inspections work?

Not if the weapons aren't in Iraq.

(slang waits anxiously for TW's 14 paragraph rebuttal)

elSicomoro · 02-20-2003, 07:08 PM

I'll go with 10 paragraphs. Shepps?

Undertoad · 02-20-2003, 08:00 PM

If they really think these ships have the smoking gun, they should wait until the war begins to advance on them. If the ships lose contact with the mother country, and then find that command no longer comes from Baghdad, they may be more willing to give in without scuttling.

AND, at this point it makes far more sense to present the smoking gun after the diplomatic lines of the second resolution have been drawn. If France vetoes, and later the smoking gun comes out, they will be cast as an even bigger bunch of worms.

(8 paragraphs)

elSicomoro · 02-20-2003, 08:17 PM

You must be mistaken...this ship is not glowing...

UT, you might be interested in hearing Kojo Nnamdi's show from today: nation-building. (Go here, then scroll down to Thursday and you'll see it...it's on realaudio.)

slang · 02-20-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
smoking gun.............smoking gun...........

IMO, *any* scenario or smoking gun, no matter how obvious, will not change the minds of those that have fallen into the "solidly against" catagory regarding the war.

Even a housecall from Saddam wont affect their opinions, because they arent protesting *the war*, they are protesting Bush.

SteveDallas · 02-20-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slang

Even a housecall from Saddam wont affect their opinions, because they arent protesting *the war*, they are protesting Bush.

Welcome to America... when's the last time somebody changed somebody else's mind in a political controversy? When's the last time somebody dead-horsed an issue when they weren't doing it for political advantage of some kind? At least the protestors have the cojones to stand up and be counted. The wussy democrats are all afraid people are going to accuse them of being unpatrriotic if they say too many things critical of the president. (The 2002 elections convinced me that there can't be more than one or two spines available collectively to all the Democrats in Congress.)

History will tell who's right. I've reached the point where I'd just as soon they get it over with, because it seems inevitable.

slang · 02-20-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveDallas
History will tell who's right. I've reached the point where I'd just as soon they get it over with, because it seems inevitable.

Well, we can agree on that. I've overdosed on the whole deal.

Will Saddam affect the US or not? I don't give a fuck anymore because if I am dead I, wont have to go to work at my new shit job.

(slang) I can't come in today, I'm dead. (boss) Oooh, you can't *die* while you are working here....(boss grumbles) Fucking guy calls in dead...Christ

I made the mistake of asking my boss if he was a Republican the other day (big evil bussiness owners are normally Reps ya know

) Can you guess what he said?

SteveDallas · 02-21-2003, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slang

I made the mistake of asking my boss if he was a Republican the other day (big evil bussiness owners are normally Reps ya know ) Can you guess what he said?

"Get back to work, slacker!"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lds/index.html

"Are they heroes or dupes?" the article asks. They're frickin' IDIOTS!!!! is what they are.

Undertoad · 02-21-2003, 10:01 AM

They're tools -- and CIA agents. But Gen'l Richard Myers addressed them in yesterday's Pentagon press conference: if Hussein uses them, or any other civilians for that matter, as human shields -- it's a direct violation of the Geneva convention and he will be treated as a war criminal.

SteveDallas · 02-21-2003, 11:25 AM

CIA agents? Tell us more. Frankly that strikes me as being a smart move, smarter than I'd give a CIA that (apparently) didn't put a high priority on the development of Arabic language skills amongst its analysts and didn't feel the urge to place agents in terrorist groups credit for. (Yeah, yeah, I know these things are easier said then done, but damn, if the CIA can't do stuff like that, what good are they?)

02-20-2003, 10:49 AM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	WMDs where inspectors can't find them ...At sea. Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources. The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country. Will longer and more drastic inspections work? Not if the weapons aren't in Iraq. (Rumors also have some weapons moving to Syria, the story notes, but these are just rumors. I'll just say this isn't the first time I've heard those rumors...)

02-20-2003, 11:13 AM	#2
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Wow ... the international arms equivalent of parking your car in a different neighborhood every night to keep it away from the repo man. I wonder if any of the months and months worth of satellite imagery that hasn't been analyzed yet shows any of the loading, or at least the truck convoys from 'suspected' weapons sites to the docks. That's the first place I'd look. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

02-20-2003, 06:29 PM	#3
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	"Who are you?" ... "I say again, who are you?" ... What ship? What oil slick are you talking about?

02-20-2003, 06:41 PM	#4
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	OK... time for me to put on my "shockingly naive" hat.... which I seem to be wearing quite a bit lately... Why haven't they nailed them for whatever violations of maritime law they're committing? If it's this easy to evade accountability just by leaving your radio turned off, it's a wonder we don't have piracy on the high seas.

02-20-2003, 06:50 PM	#5
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	There IS piracy on the high seas...we just don't hear about it a lot here.

02-20-2003, 07:08 PM	#7
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I'll go with 10 paragraphs. Shepps?

02-20-2003, 08:00 PM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	If they really think these ships have the smoking gun, they should wait until the war begins to advance on them. If the ships lose contact with the mother country, and then find that command no longer comes from Baghdad, they may be more willing to give in without scuttling. AND, at this point it makes far more sense to present the smoking gun after the diplomatic lines of the second resolution have been drawn. If France vetoes, and later the smoking gun comes out, they will be cast as an even bigger bunch of worms. (8 paragraphs)

02-20-2003, 08:17 PM	#9
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	You must be mistaken...this ship is not glowing... UT, you might be interested in hearing Kojo Nnamdi's show from today: nation-building. (Go here, then scroll down to Thursday and you'll see it...it's on realaudio.)

02-21-2003, 10:01 AM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	They're tools -- and CIA agents. But Gen'l Richard Myers addressed them in yesterday's Pentagon press conference: if Hussein uses them, or any other civilians for that matter, as human shields -- it's a direct violation of the Geneva convention and he will be treated as a war criminal.

02-21-2003, 11:25 AM	#15
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	CIA agents? Tell us more. Frankly that strikes me as being a smart move, smarter than I'd give a CIA that (apparently) didn't put a high priority on the development of Arabic language skills amongst its analysts and didn't feel the urge to place agents in terrorist groups credit for. (Yeah, yeah, I know these things are easier said then done, but damn, if the CIA can't do stuff like that, what good are they?)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)