Is Air Cargo Safety a Concern for CNN in 2005?

[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?