News Is Air Cargo Safety a Concern for CNN in 2005?

[The Smoking Man]

Wanna make a bet?

*slaps a fish on the table*

If you love sushi like I love sushi Oh Oh Oh what a gal!

About 209,000 Gulf War veterans have filed claims with the Veterans Administration, and 161,000 of them are receiving disability payments.

Neither American company listed -- Alcolac International, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Al-Haddad Trading, based in Nashville, Tennessee -- are still in business.

No one from Al-Haddad could be reached.

Alcolac paid a fine in 1989 under U.S. law for one charge of exporting thiodiglycol, a chemical that could be used to make mustard gas, but that shipment was destined for another country.

"I am unaware of any direct sale from Alcolac to Iraq," says attorney Ron Welsh, who represents Rhodia, which owns the defunct Alcolac's assets.

 

[Archon]

Well since you have not demonstrated any basis to the idea that Americans have given up any important liberties, I believe your stastement is completely false.

What I said there was completely independent of the loss of civil liberties. Re-read it and then respond to what is really there, so I can make an actual counter-argument.

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.

Nothing happened before 9-11. Yet America was "less safe" at that time. How about this: you believe that America is safer, so the burden of proof lies on you. Now prove it.

Note: No terrorist attacks does not equate to a safer America. Again, remember the time before 9-11.

 

[Pengwuino]

a) Do you not know about this? Seriously?
b) Opinion does matter, since as I recall, America is still (nominally) run on Democratic principles. This is precisely because opinion does matter.

So opinion trumps facts in debates, right.

Really. Don't resort to some varient of the "Liberals are traitors to America. Terrorist attacks are their fault" routine. If I remember correctly, the President (i.e. the one with the real power to stop this) is a Republican, as are the House and the Senate.
Civilian Militia Groups=Not Government Officials=No Business Keeping People Out of Our Country.
You shouldn't get jail time for thinking this way in, accordance with freedom of speech, as set out in Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, ratified December 15, 1791. Remember that one?

Might wanan take a look at teh US Constitutions allowance for militias when the US Government cannot do its job. Hell the 2nd amendment makes a small note of them. Of course... the 2nd amendment doesn't exist right?

 

[Pengwuino]

What I said there was completely independent of the loss of civil liberties. Re-read it and then respond to what is really there, so I can make an actual counter-argument.

You basically refuse to provide proof that there is any serious civil liberty losses going on right now. I am sorry if I require proof... maybe you'll be more suited to argue with TSM.

Nothing happened before 9-11. Yet America was "less safe" at that time. How about this: you believe that America is safer, so the burden of proof lies on you. Now prove it.

Note: No terrorist attacks does not equate to a safer America. Again, remember the time before 9-11.

Incorrect, burden of proof is on the idea that we are in more danger then before. The very fact that security has been beefed up (even if its in the slightest way) provides the proof that America is safer. There is however, no proof whatsoever that America is in anymore danger then it was at 9/11 as argued by you and SOS. Please provide proof that it is.

 

[SOS2008]

We're having a little problem finding one man in a few million square miles of mountain ranges... along with a suspected terrorist nation. I suppose that's not the least bit excusable?

In an attempt to return to the topic...somewhat... If we catch OBL, will we be safe from terrorism? If we invade more countries as we did Iraq, will that make Americans safer from terrorism?

 

[Archon]

Hmmm Germany eh? Might want to get a more realistic source then that since they are one of the #1 suspects in the oil-for-food program having many german officials and companies accused of financing the Iraq regime.

Wait. Are you saying that a leftist German newspaper was funding the Iraq regime (I assume you mean Hussein, since the U.S. and many other countries are funding an Iraq regime right now)? Because this seems unlikely, and unless they were, we have no reason the believe that their data is wrong.

Don't forget this sentance:

Read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)

Not German, but still in countries associated with the funding of Hussein. Does that make them unreliable as well?

 

[Archon]

So opinion trumps facts in debates, right.

Part (a) is relevant to what you were saying. I'll restate the question: do you or do you not know about the government's power to hold suspected terrorists without allowing them their Constitutional rights?
Part (b) is a comment on the nature of Democracy. The facts were contained in my previous post.

Might wanan take a look at teh US Constitutions allowance for militias when the US Government cannot do its job. Hell the 2nd amendment makes a small note of them. Of course... the 2nd amendment doesn't exist right?

First: do you mean "The Congress shall have power...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," or do you mean the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms (irrelevant to the current discussion)? If the former, have the militias been "called forth" by the Congress?
In any case, the important point in what I said was that Bush (Not a liberal) isn't doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering the country. You seem to have ignored this point entirely. Another important point is my contention that one shouldn't be jailed for exercising one's freedom of speech. You seem to think the opposite, at least on this point. This shows a blatant disregard for civil liberties in the face of opposition to your views.

 

[Archon]

You basically refuse to provide proof that there is any serious civil liberty losses going on right now. I am sorry if I require proof... maybe you'll be more suited to argue with TSM.




Incorrect, burden of proof is on the idea that we are in more danger then before. The very fact that security has been beefed up (even if its in the slightest way) provides the proof that America is safer. There is however, no proof whatsoever that America is in anymore danger then it was at 9/11 as argued by you and SOS. Please provide proof that it is.

ARGH! Look, security has been "beefed up," at least nominally, but any safety gained from this has been more than counteracted by American actions in the Middle East. There are more terrorists now than there were before, and world opinion of America, particularly in countries known for terrorism, is now lower than before. Tell me that this makes you feel safe.

Second, and I've said this already like three times, so pay attention and respond to this point: we have as much reason to think that America is safe now as we did before 9-11. Your only evidence in this direction is that there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9-11. The same was true 10 minutes before 9-11 itself happened. I doubt you'd argue that America was safe from terrorists before 9-11. Your outlook on our current status should be no different, because it really isn't appreciably harder for terrorists to kill Americans.

Anyway, as has already been said in this thread, the terrorists are better served by fighting America in Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

Nothing has happened. Its equivalent to saying that America is less safe (although the burden of proof is on someone who believes) with no basis like SOS has said.

And after I worked so hard to dumb it down you still didn't understand what I've said.

Reporting on car accidents is not fear-mongering because it is reporting events that actually happened, and is not trying to illicit a response of any kind (except possibly empathy for the victims). Reporting on minor insecurities in our nation is fear-mongering, because it is reporting on events that probably won't happen, and attempt to illicit a fearful response.

Personally, I'm more fearful of sensationalized articles, because they are indications that terror is in fact being instilled in people. I have no fear whatsoever about being killed in a terrorist attack, because death is death, and I'm more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by a terrorist attack.

Exactly, and this analogy was given in the piece quoted earlier, as follows:

It's one thing to issue a hurricane warning, and advise people to board up their windows and remain in the basement. Hurricanes are short-term events, and it's obvious when the danger is imminent and when it's over. People respond to the warning, and there is a discrete period when their lives are markedly different. They feel there was a usefulness to the higher alert mode, even if nothing came of it.

 

[Smurf]

And beyond that, whenever we hear about car crashes on the news or whatever, I don't see anyone calling it fear mongering... .

Funny enough, there is a lot of what you could call "fear-mongering" going on about this, and it's coming from independant organizations like MADD (mothers against drunk driving) trying to reduce the threat.

Well, at least in Canada. I don't know how much of this goes on in the states.

 

[Smurf]

You've got a guy in Jail in Iraq that can bury you if it gets to the world court. Even the Iranians have prepared a brief that they are presenting to the Iraqi Government naming the USA as accomplices.
...
Don't you see that Iraq has opened up negotiations with Iran and has admitted fault in the starting of the war between Saddam and Iran? Who was holding Saddam's hand at the time ... Figuratively and literally?

Which specific events are you referring to TSM?

 

[Smurf]

Hell I don't know how many liberals have cried that bush isn't doing enough to combat terrorism but when he does, they cry "fear mongering!". Such hypocricy. These people want a war and it is not at all going to stop them by simply ignoring them.

Being the first one to use 'fear mongering' in this thread, I take offence to that generalization as I have always been of the opinion that the War on Terror should never have happened in the first place and am still very much opposed to the occupation of Afghanistan (which everyone else seems to have forgotten about).

You're 'liberals' arn't all the same you know.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Which specific events are you referring to TSM?

It was the USA prior to 1990 who was shipping bio-chem weapons components to Iraq.

They also supplied them with satelite intel re: troop movements and weather conditions.

When Saddam used his illegal chemical weapons against Iran, he did so with the help and blessings of the USA.

Also, that infamous picture of Rummy Shaking hands with Saddam was taken two weeks AFTER he gassed the Kurds and an announcement was made by the US administration sort of 'forgiving it'.

 

[Smurf]

The precuations may very well may have prevented some deaths. Like I already pointed out, terrorists have been caught crossing hte border in California while also attempting to buy some rather nasty stuff (thank god it was a sting).

If you're referring to the event I think you're referring to then it's hardly worth mentioning. The 'terrorists' involved were ridiculously stupid in falling into that. It's not easy to buy any radioactive materials, let alone any that can cause serious damage and the fact that the police managed to fool the terrorists into falling for such an obvious sting speaks volumes of the terrorist's incompetence. And because they're so incompetent I hardly think they're the kind of people you should be looking for.

 

[Smurf]

It was the USA prior to 1990 who was shipping bio-chem weapons components to Iraq.
snip
Also, that infamous picture of Rummy Shaking hands with Saddam was taken two weeks AFTER he gassed the Kurds and an announcement was made by the US administration sort of 'forgiving it'.

I was really more interested in that 'guy in jail' bit. Who were you referring to?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The USA reportedly approved the export to Iraq of US$1.5bn worth of dual-use items, including powerful computers, precision machine tools and advanced electronics. Suspicions by Pentagon officials halted the export of certain items, such as 40 kryton nuclear triggers (high-speed timing devices) which US and UK customs agents had seized in London in 1990, and 'skull' furnaces that could be used in the development of missiles and nuclear bombs.

An investigation of US corporate sales to Iraq, headed by Republican Congressman Donald Riegle and published in May 1994, listed some of the biological agents exported by US corporations with George Bush's approval as head of the CIA and later as vice-president under Ronald Reagan. The Iraqis are reported to have acquired stocks of anthrax, brucellosis, gas gangrene, E. coli and salmonella bacteria from US companies.

Throughout the 1980s, the UK Conservative government proactively assisted 'non-lethal weapons' and dual-use equipment to Iraq, such as high-temperature-resistant electric switches and computerised rocket simulators. Through a number of UK companies, machine tools and lathes were manufactured and exported to build shells and detonation fuses in Iraq. In January 1988, trade minister Alan Clark held a meeting with British arms manufacturers in which he advised them to 'downgrade' the official description of arms-related material when applying for export licences - to make it appear to be equipment for civilian use.

Between 1999 and 2001, Whitehall officials sanctioned more than US$2.36m worth of export licenses to Syria for military items including thermal infrared imaging equipment, now suspected of being supplied to Iraq. Despite the Labour government improving arms controls since 1997 and passing an Export Control Act in 2002, there is still no definitive evidence of serious commitment to monitor the final destination and end-use of UK-supplied arms.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jcbw/jcbw030417_1_n.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

Wait. Are you saying that a leftist German newspaper was funding the Iraq regime (I assume you mean Hussein, since the U.S. and many other countries are funding an Iraq regime right now)? Because this seems unlikely, and unless they were, we have no reason the believe that their data is wrong.

Smoking Man didn't post the full list:

http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=378

http://www.sundayherald.com/31710

SEVENTEEN British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation.
. . .
Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds.
. . .
In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.

That gives us the UK, US, Germany, China, France, Russia, Japan, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden all providing weapons to Iraq. At least most of them stopped when the Gulf War broke out. However, China (yes, Smoking Man's beloved China) and Russia both continued to sell weapons to Iraq for many years after, in violation of UN sanctions:

Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Smoking Man didn't post the full list:

http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=378

http://www.sundayherald.com/31710



That gives us the UK, US, Germany, China, France, Russia, Japan, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden all providing weapons to Iraq. At least most of them stopped when the Gulf War broke out. However, China (yes, Smoking Man's beloved China) and Russia both continued to sell weapons to Iraq for many years after, in violation of UN sanctions:

He only asked about the US.

 

[Archon]

Smoking Man didn't post the full list:

http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=378

http://www.sundayherald.com/31710



That gives us the UK, US, Germany, China, France, Russia, Japan, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden all providing weapons to Iraq. At least most of them stopped when the Gulf War broke out. However, China (yes, Smoking Man's beloved China) and Russia both continued to sell weapons to Iraq for many years after, in violation of UN sanctions:

My intention was solely to defend the source, since Pengwuino (if I interpreted what he's saying correctly) claimed that the source, a German newspaper, is unreliable because Germany was involved in the oil-for-food scandal and in selling stuff to Hussein. This is, of course, nonsense, and I was merely pointing this fact out. I didn't even need to see the full list: it's rather unlikely that the newspaper, if it happened to be financing Hussein's regime, would incriminate itself by releasing its name on such a list.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I just misinterpreted what Pengwuino is talking about.

 

[MaxS]

I have to ask one question: What is the logic behind posting it in the news when you find a security weakness? Isn't that a bit like screaming "attack us here?"

I haven't read all the responses so someone may have already answered this, but:

By exposing a weakness you force something to be done about it. This is the same principle behind hackers exposing flaws in Microsoft's security code in order to get Microsoft to protect consumers from people who would actually exploit those flaws.

If a news crew can find these security holes I'm sure someone determined to do harm could too.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Pengwuino, et al -- After all the discussions in all the threads I can't believe the crap certain members are still espousing. Don't you pay any attention to anything? Let's do a little review about terrorism and the invasion of Iraq:

1) The invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on lies
2) The invasion of Iraq distracted resources from the "war on terrorism" and pursuit of OBL
3) Regime change not only is illegal, it is not US foreign policy as can be seen in regard to other dictatorships throughout history and into the present
4) The invasion of Iraq has cost the US tremendously in blood and treasure, only to result in an increase NOT decrease of terrorism
5) Therefore the invasion of Iraq has NOT made Americans safer, nor has it helped the Iraqi people who are not better off now than they were under the dictatorship of Saddam
6) The invasion of Iraq is likely to evolve into a civil war and ultimately an Islamic government that may well become anti-American

The war has NOT been worth it. So why don't you get over it, and stop repeating the same old conservative nonsense?

 

[SOS2008]

Pengwuino, et al -- After all the discussions in all the threads I can't believe the crap certain members are still espousing. Don't you pay any attention to anything? Let's do a little review about terrorism and the invasion of Iraq:

1) The invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on lies
2) The invasion of Iraq distracted resources from the "war on terrorism" and pursuit of OBL
3) Regime change not only is illegal, it is not US foreign policy as can be seen in regard to other dictatorships throughout history and into the present
4) The invasion of Iraq has cost the US tremendously in blood and treasure, only to result in an increase NOT decrease of terrorism
5) Therefore the invasion of Iraq has NOT made Americans safer, nor has it helped the Iraqi people who are not better off now than they were under the dictatorship of Saddam
6) The invasion of Iraq is likely to evolve into a civil war and ultimately an Islamic government that may well become anti-American

The war has NOT been worth it. So why don't you get over it, and stop repeating the same old conservative nonsense?

I'd add to that Bush's flip-flop against using troops for nation building, because our soldiers are over there doing just that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Penqwuino you seem to suffer from the same malady as the current administration. If the facts don't fit the policy, ignore them or modify them to fit.

You seem like a nice person Penqwuino, it is ok to admit that Bush has screwed up royally without compromising your conservative values. He doesn't really share those values with you anyway. And he certainly does not practice them.

If Jesus Christ was truly the philosopher that has most inspired him, how could he lie to start a war?

And please don't give me that "it was the CIA's fault" argument.

If it was why did the director get the medal of freedom for screwing up so badly?