US ports

[Memnoch]

Incidentally, have any of you been to Dubai? It's got one of THE biggest duty free shopping malls in the world.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: We shall see how good friends they really are, time will tell- actions will speak.

Actions have already spoken. America isn't friend with them. I don't see why they would need to act like friend in return. [/QUOTE]Huh? Those ports are ours to sell or not. Saying "no" does not equate to being unfriendly. A democraticly elected body took action and spoke for the people, forcing a withdrawal.

We have set the democratic example. If we lost friends, I question the principles upon which those friendships were formed considering the lack of democracy in the region.

[ 03-12-2006, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Morgeruat]

linkie

The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports. The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked "sensitive security information" and obtained by The Associated Press. The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

The full article has more, but this is what I wanted to point out, and has been one of my major apprehensions with the deal, as good a job as Customs, and the Coast Guard do, they can't inspect every container, or even 1/5th of the containers coming into the country, and in fact seem to base their inspections on cargo manifests (wouldn't take long to find out what types of cargo are most frequently checked, and smuggle things into other less frequently checked containers).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Huh? Those ports are ours to sell or not. Saying "no" does not equate to being unfriendly. A democraticly elected body took action and spoke for the people, forcing a withdrawal. We have set the democratic example. If we lost friends, I question the principles upon which those friendships were formed considering the lack of democracy in the region.

Well, imagine how we would react if the majority of UAE voters took a stand that we could not be trusted to do business there. This may be a "democratic" example, but that is in fact the whole problem. It shows that as a democratic majority we're still a nation of insular isolationist bigots.

Now that we've /spat on UAE, everything's solved, right? We can just go right back to living and forget about the fact that OUR PORTS ARE STILL INSECURE AS HELL.

We won't fix the problem -- but boy we sure showed those DP World invaders, didn't we?

[ 03-13-2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Huh? Those ports are ours to sell or not. Saying "no" does not equate to being unfriendly. A democraticly elected body took action and spoke for the people, forcing a withdrawal. We have set the democratic example. If we lost friends, I question the principles upon which those friendships were formed considering the lack of democracy in the region.

Well, imagine how we would react if the majority of UAE voters took a stand that we could not be trusted to do business there. This may be a "democratic" example, but that is in fact the whole problem. It shows that as a democratic majority we're still a nation of insular isolationist bigots.

Now that we've /spat on UAE, everything's solved, right? We can just go right back to living and forget about the fact that OUR PORTS ARE STILL INSECURE AS HELL.

We won't fix the problem -- but boy we sure showed those DP World invaders, didn't we? [/QUOTE]Even better, the port security problem got spotlight coverage for two weeks! That doesnt fix the problems, but it doesn't hurt either.

Of course we still trade with the UAE and I'm sure our military contracts with them are still quite golden. Thier rich rulers are savvy business people. Losing this port deal may have rippled to the surface, but it didn't dent their bucket.

And I'd watch who your calling a bigot. Thems fighting words. I'd just drop it if you simply cannot grasp the logical and heartfelt reasons to oppose the deal and favor keeping our ports close to home.

[Timber Loftis]

There's nothing logical about it. You haven't bothered to understand the facts, I believe. You haven't done an honest comparrison of the qualitative difference between how things will operate on a day-to-day basis under current management vs. under DP's management (answer = 0). As for heartfelt -- well that's the whole problem, isn't it? My whole argument is that the attitude around this is based too much on *feeling,* with all its accompanied prejudices.

And mean, be honest, how many Americans looked into how port security is run? How many more do you think said, "Arabs? Hell no!" and let that be the extent of their analysis?

And, my statement that you take offense to was a statement about the majority. I didn't say you, wookie, were anything.

[ 03-14-2006, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: There's nothing logical about it. You haven't bothered to understand the facts, I believe. You haven't done an honest comparrison of the qualitative difference between how things will operate on a day-to-day basis under current management vs. under DP's management (answer = 0).

A competent American company will do the same job, only the money generated won't being going into the coffers of a non-democratic nation's royal family. That's a logical assessment.

It is not reasonable to give or sell something as important as our port operations to another governemnt, no matter how many of our lobbiest they buy tell us it's okay. That's logic.

It is also logical that anything that might increase risk rather than decrease it as far as security is concerned should be avoided. How logically does having a foreign governemnt from a region of the world full of enemies owning part of our ports decrease risk?

I understand more than the facts. I can ask more questions, draw more conclusions and have multiple angles to back up my position. You are relying on a single conclusion about day-to-day port operations to prove the depth of your logical analysis? I think you fail to grasp not only the facts, but also the myriad of conclsions a person can draw from them.

As for heartfelt -- well that's the whole problem, isn't it? My whole argument is that the attitude around this is based too much on *feeling,* with all its accompanied prejudices. And mean, be honest, how many Americans looked into how port security is run? How many more do you think said, "Arabs? Hell no!" and let that be the extent of their analysis? And, my statement that you take offense to was a statement about the majority. I didn't say you, wookie, were anything.

I doubt American's are bigots or isolationists. I see nothing wrong at all with protectionism, if applied fairly. I'm far more concerned about the lack of democracy in the UAE and the lack of transparency with how our Executuive handled the deal rather than conjectured racism, put-downs, and sweeping generalizations.

If looking out for home, best as well as first, is now somehow wrong.... damn me to hell I say. I'm the coolest kind of wrong.

[Memnoch]

The problem though, Chewy, is that these days so much business is done globally - to keep certain things in-house when it's economically inefficient for them to do so will ultimately be to America's disadvantge. I read an article in the Boston Globe the other day about how the vast majority of ships used to supply the US military with material and equipment (fuel, etc) is foreign owned, because American companies have withdrawn from that market because they can't compete. Apparently if these ships were all withdrawn at time of war it would leave the US Navy at a critical point.

If you go the full protectionism route you end up raising tariffs and breeding inefficiency into your domestic industry.

The solution, if you want to keep things in house, is to develop these strategically important industries in such a way that to go in house is a logical business outcome, rather than a stopgap measure.

[Felix The Assassin]

Chewy, I have 25 years experience with Uncle Sam, 23 in uniform and two as a contractor. The secrets I know would horrify you. The visions I have engrained in my own crainium housing group would make you lay awake at night. But what it boils down to is the person on the ground. He is the one that makes or breaks the vault. Just like the police officer that patrols your hood, If he's a bad cop what happens? If he's a good cop what happens?

The point is, the contract within itself will dictate who does what. Now, your friend Bill Clinton was working hand in hand with DPW to get this contract secured. Why do you think that is?

TL really hammered it out in his earlier post, people of America that cannot see outside the box have a real prejudice, and especially if it's anything relaetd to the Middle East.

Our secrets are well protetced. And whoever is at the money end of the spectrum, has little to do with WHO the grounds keeper is. This is all based upon the contract writing, and execution. With that said, the same Tommy the security man will be the SAME Tommy the security man. But most importantly, the same U.S. Coast Guard vessel that patrols our waters today, will be the same tomorrow.

What you don't know! How many foreign countries have sizeable contracts within the borders of the US of A! I know what a foreign contract has to go through. I also know what an in house contract bid looks like as well. They ain't exactly the same!

I'll close with this secret as well. You also don't know where our spy sattellites, spy planes (oops), spy agents, and nuclear submarines are deployed. Any of which, could bring more than just an end to terrorism within itself. All of this you say? I say this, price to contract ratio, current view, current politics, and current media hype all equal "calculated risk!"

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: The point is, the contract within itself will dictate who does what. Now, your friend Bill Clinton was working hand in hand with DPW to get this contract secured. Why do you think that is?

Ummm.... Money. That is my final answer Hate to tell ya but Bubba and his video-game banning wife are no friends of mine.