Chaos Manager

The answer to your question, which is a good question, of how does approving the UAE contract ensures the containers AREN’T safe... Since the company that has this contract both supervises the loading of the containers and prepares the documents that are to list the contents, a slip on that end would allow the potential for a nuclear weapon or some other WMD to be concealed in a container bound for our ports. We do not have the means to insure that every container and every document is truthful. Thus we are saying we are placing OUR TRUST in a company owned by an Islamic country with a checkered background to be responsible to insure NO CONTAINER has WMD inside and that ALL documents show what is in the containers. It is those documents that the Coast Guard uses to decide which of the containers they inspect.

This is an ADDED RISK we do not need in a post 9/11 world. We need American controlled companies to be supervising the loading of the containers and insuring the documents reflect what is really in the containers. Now that both the 9/11 commission report, page 130, and the Coast Guard have issues with this contract, the discussion should be OVER!

Watch Bush put pressure on the Coast Guard to modify their earlier problems with this deal. I would be willing to BET that will take place. Who ever provided the unclassified report from the Coast Guard has ENDED their Career!

Col, did you rent the movie "The Sum Of All Fears" from netflix and have been watching it for weeks everyday? Just because you don't have to pay late fees doesn't mean you have to keep it for so long.

I won't call you stupid, because you have the right to be concerned over these kinds of things. But that doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid or ignorant simply because they don't agree with you. Cry and moan all you want, the deal will go thru all the same.

It amazes me how everyone here feels the need to have to explain themselves, with detail, over and over and over to Col knowing he will never listen. I include myself in that group BTW. I can barely get 10 or 15 people to reply on my articles yet he makes some of the highest scoring articles I have seen in here and barely one or 2 of them make sense.

Given the number of American that have contacted their members of Congress and from ALL the polls, you are the one in the minority. The vast majority do not support this issue. Just the latest in a series of Bush policies the VAST MAJORITY do not support! I have not watched that movie although I know of the plot. Given the fact I am a former nuclear weapons officer, I would go to extreme lengths to help prevent ANY such event by terrorists in America. You may be willing to take the risk, I would not be so inclined. For an administration that warned of mushroom clouds from a country that had no nuclear weapons, I find the Bush decision on this one unbelievable. The man is an idiot and is selling the security of this nation down the river. The lack of the manpower in the Army, Coast Guard or borders demonstrate Bush has failed his most basic responsibility. Now he is providing access to our ports to an Islamic state.

"Britain has an active terror problem. ALL of the bombers in their recent attack were British residents."

There is a big difference between a few Muslim nutcases from northern England attacking UK transport and the government of the UAE actively supporting terrorism.

"There is a big difference between a few Muslim nutcases from northern England attacking UK transport and the government of the UAE actively supporting terrorism."

Allegedly, and years ago. If you want to split hairs we supported Osama bin Laden, too, at one time.

The answer to your question, which is a good question, of how does approving the UAE contract ensures the containers AREN’T safe... Since the company that has this contract both supervises the loading of the containers and prepares the documents that are to list the contents, a slip on that end would allow the potential for a nuclear weapon or some other WMD to be concealed in a container bound for our ports. We do not have the means to insure that every container and every document is truthful. Thus we are saying we are placing OUR TRUST in a company owned by an Islamic country with a checkered background to be responsible to insure NO CONTAINER has WMD inside and that ALL documents show what is in the containers. It is those documents that the Coast Guard uses to decide which of the containers they inspect.

Gene, that's all well and good. Sadly, THEY DO THIS ALREADY WHEN THE CONTAINERS ARE LOADED ON THEIR END!!!

The port operators DO NOT load up containers for shipping. Their concerns are making sure Container A gets on Ship B destined for Port C. For incoming cargo, they make sure that container D gets off of Ship E and gets on Truck F to go to Destination G.

They're the folks that employ the longshoreman that actually do the off-/on-loading of the ships. The actual (un)loading of the containerized cargo. The emptying of the cargo is done a) at another location by the folks that are the actual recipients of the cargo.

Where in this chain could

a nuclear weapon or some other WMD to be concealed in a container bound for our ports

These items would have to be loaded in ANOTHER FREAKIN' COUNTRY before they ever reached US ports. Unless, you're talking about the UAE loading nukes onto containers that are on US soil DESTINED FOR OTHER COUNTRIES. In which case, I'm ALMOST tempted to say "Screw 'em."

Next time, Gene, make sure you get a little bit clearer picture of what actually happens in an area before you start ranting. Or better yet, go visit the Port of Tampa Bay or Port of Miami for ideas of what happens in a port. See, I did that. Went with my son to look at the Port of Norfolk to see what was going on there and how things work. Have done the same in Seattle. I'm not exactly clueless of what happens in a port.

There is NO reason why American Companies are not OPERATING our PORTS. I HOPE BUSH AND THE GOP PUSH THIS THROUGH. THAT SHOULD INSURE THEY LOSE IN NOV 2006 AND WE BRING SOME BALANCE TO WASHINGTON.

Gene, here's your golden opportunity. Form yourself a company and put in a bid for the P&O's US operations.

Or would you rather the Feds showed up at Proctor & Gamble and advised them they are now required to run the ports so they better get their shit together pronto?

What company would you nominate, Gene?

This whole circus has been idiotic and is getting more Alice-in-Wonderland every day.

The day just one WMD comes through our ports, the fantasy will be OVER!

Which is exactly the point, Gene - this has nothing to do with keeping WMD out of our ports, despite your feigned hysteria. And, as usual, of course, you ignore questions put to you.

Most Americans do NOT WANT this contract to be approved.

Most Americans do NOT WANT this contract to be approved

I'd say most Americans do not UNDERSTAND the contract and some are now unwilling to learn because they believe what the media hyped in the beginning....that our "national security" is being sold out.

Me: What color is the sky, Gene?

Gene: The hourglass on the belly of the female black widow spider is red. NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE BITTEN BY A BLACK WIDOW SPIDER. If Bush had not outlawed DDT, WE'D ALL BE SAFE FROM BLACK WIDOW SPIDERS!

Daiwa, your story fails to inspire, because it involves Gene promoting a classic neoconservative position on DDT.

Point to stutefish. But if it would make Bush look bad, Gene would have no problem promoting mothercide.