Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

And for clarification, By IDIOT I am referring to ANYONE who looks at a report and says "Wow, look at what THIS guys says about what we are doing in our _____________ ... (fill in blank)" ... And people will then grasp a hold of it and think it is now fact.

There was an article yesterday .... Headline "US Inspector Says No WMD's in IRAQ" ... the two main points of the article...

1. That they did not find stockpiles. Well, Every ounce of Anthrax, Mustard Gas... ALL of Iraq's WMD's that WERE there in 1991 would fit into a high school gymnasium. The UN used that for a size reference. Iraq is the size of California, with over 1/2 being desert... HOW hard would it be to hide that small amount of materials...

2. They DID find labs lying dormant waiting for the WEST to lose interest, so Iraq could resume building its biological and Chemical stockpiles without scrutiny. NOTE the HEADLINE ignored the most important FACT about IRAQ...

The UN's resolutions called for the destruction of BOTH the current capacity (important) AND all the equipment to produce MORE stockpiles of WMD's - even MORE important.

One item Mr. Ridge DID point out (and one our so-called "media" gleefully ignores) is that chemical weapons have a "shelf Life" ... and NEED to be replaced quite often. HAVING the facilities remaining viable was a FAR GREATER threat than the stockpiles.

Here is a question for anyone to try... What was the method used to make US Chemical Weapons, and why was this important ?

Whenever the US military allows us to see any of their high tech stuff, you have to remember that you are now looking at "old news". There is always something even more advanced than what they allow us to see in use.

"What was the method used to make US Chemical Weapons, and why was this important?"

Beyond pouring some chlorine and ammonia into a shell . I have no idea, but I'm curious.

They are binary rounds. Two completely inert compunds in two separate chambers. The only way that they became lethal was when, under pressure and at the proper ambient tempature, the two chambers were mixed together while the warhead was in the air.

Which is one reason why you did not see the types of problems with our Chemical weapons that the Russians had...

In reply to:

---

About 1/2 the budget and policies are classified, including ports, Nuclear plants, and commercial (as in Fed Ex) flights.

PM - Would you have Mr. Ridge send Al Queda a blueprint outlining all their policies and strategies ?

I will be blunt here, people. IF YOU BUY ALL THE BULLSHIT BEING PUT OUT IN THE MEDIA, YOU ARE AT THE MINIMUM IGNORANT, AND POSSIBLY A MORON.

---

And if you buy all the bullshit being put out by the White House, you're too gullible and trusting of people who don't think the truth is that important.

I'm specifically speaking about port security. I'm not sure where your "send al Qaeda a blueprint" comment came from. I don't need to have the details of what is being done to know whether or not something substantive is being done to secure our ports. The fact is that most major commercial ports STILL don't check any more containers than they did 3 years ago. Why? Because they lack the money, the manpower, and the means.

Are you trying to tell me that they really ARE checking more containers, but they don't want the enemy to know so we can catch them red-handed?

A friend of mine had a nice old 30' boat at the very back of Long Beach harbor on the industrial side. We would pass by all the offloading operations and see all the huge ships tied up, more coming and going. The world's busiest harbor apparently.
From what I saw, it would be impossible (in practical terms) to search all those containers. The harbor is definitely vulnerable.

PMB - Spend a few hours with Mr. Ridge, then tell me how gullible I am. The man knows his stuff, does not seek publicity for it, and made some great points.

He was asked about port security, and many steps have been taken to allow for safety.

And If all the steps being taken by the Homeland security people was published to make guys like you feel safer, that would be sending Al Quaeda a blueprint.

All those "un-biased" media groups you love would be VERY happy to print as much as possible.

In November, 2001, at the urging of the US, new maritime standards were introduced in order to increase safety in all three areas, export ports, on the sea lanes, and import ports.

Some enhancements :

1. X-Ray machines on all cruise ships.
2. New security cameras and restricted areas.
3. Stricter certification programs for foreign ships.
4. Placing all local law enforcement for our local ports with the US Coast Guard so they could better coordinate efforts.
5. Inspecting every container coming into the US. - Today, 2/3rd's of containers are inspected at the foreign port before leaving. This is an international effort.

In Transent, all containers will have "smart locks" on them, which will show whether they have been tampered with.

In our ports, $556 million has been budgeted for X-Ray machines which can scan a 40 foot container in less than one minute. They also receive a 96 hour notice from each ship coming in, and the Coast guard analyzes the threat possibility on each ship, and is regularly checking for containers without proper smart lock technology.

This is a small slice of the efforts being taken to make sure ports are safe.

Any specific questions ?

I hope it works. There is a constant, massive stream of those shipping containers on railroad cars and big rig trailers heading out of here to points all over the US. Looks like a daunting task.

BigWill... I am sure that mistakes are being made, there IS still the human element here.

PMB - They have caught 9000 illegals to date, and are checking the majority of containers. Your statement that "no more containers are being checked out now than three years ago" was false, if I was you, I would be pretty annoyed at the person who told me this bilge.

As for "catching them red handed" ... In World War II, before D-Day, We went to great lengths to make sure the Germans thought the landing was taking place in Calais with Patton at the helm. It is a very basic concept in war that you do NOT tell the enemy what you are doing.