Port Deal still crap

[rtwngAvngr]

This port deal is still crap. Regardless of all the nice sounding words, it's still having some amount of port control turned over to a partially nationalized Mideast Company.

Freedom is for sale. This is stupid.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm so sick of hearing people spin this. Just because we don't want The UAE running our ports does NOT mean we're "turning towards protectionism". This amount of dishonesty in discourse bothers me.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm so sick of hearing people spin this. Just because we don't want The UAE running our ports does NOT mean we're "turning towards protectionism". This amount of dishonesty in discourse bothers me.

There IS no deal.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There IS no deal.

I hope you're right.

 

[dilloduck]

I hope you're right.

I know I am--but there might be. Everyone in the world is going to re hash the old deal. Your new allies have got it pretty well torpedoed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know I am--but there might be. Everyone in the world is going to re hash the old deal. Your new allies have got it pretty well torpedoed.

Yes. My new allies. You and your goddamned gravitas! LOL. :dev1:

 

[dilloduck]

Yes. My new allies. You and your goddamned gravitas! LOL. :dev1:

Would it be better if I used this little guy ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is the test right here folks. Are the americans asleep? Everyone wants to know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stay Strong. If it comes to trade war, more will side with us. Oil is worthless with no market. China, you say? Their crap is worthless without us buying it at walmart. It's still all about us. We can make it so.

 

[Mr. P]

Stay Strong. If it comes to trade war, more will side with us. Oil is worthless with no market. China, you say? Their crap is worthless without us buying it at walmart. It's still all about us. We can make it so.

Maybe true, but what if one of the adversaries in this trade war controls YOUR PORTS?

Here’s where I think everyone is missing the boat. Has Control really been discuss?
Not as far as I know, we just keep hearing security will be the same, blah, blah...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Maybe true, but what if one of the adversaries in this trade war controls YOUR PORTS?

Here’s where I think everyone is missing the boat. Has Control really been discuss?
Not as far as I know, we just keep hearing security will be the same, blah, blah...

Yeah. A lot of blah blah. That's for sure.

This reminds me of when Bush called the minutemen at the border "vigilantes"; that was strike one. This is strike two.

 

[Mariner]

That's the real problem here: we are doing precious little true security at our ports. Only a tiny percentage of incoming containers is checked, and there are no good rules about inspecting and locking containers at foreign ports before they sail for the U.S. Bush's most recent budget seeks to cut money for port security. Meanwhile, his hopeless "homeland security" dept is giving $$ to Martha's Vineyard and Wyoming which should be spent on NY and LA.

In the two largest issues that threaten our security--ports and loose nuclear material around the world--Bush is doing far less than he should. I can't make sense of it.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's the real problem here: we are doing precious little true security at our ports. Only a tiny percentage of incoming containers is checked, and there are no good rules about inspecting and locking containers at foreign ports before they sail for the U.S. Bush's most recent budget seeks to cut money for port security. Meanwhile, his hopeless "homeland security" dept is giving $$ to Martha's Vineyard and Wyoming which should be spent on NY and LA.

In the two largest issues that threaten our security--ports and loose nuclear material around the world--Bush is doing far less than he should. I can't make sense of it.

Mariner.

What about closing the gaping holes in the border with mexico?

 

[dilloduck]

What about closing the gaping holes in the border with mexico?

What about Congress getting of the fat asses and doing something?

 

[Mariner]

terrorists could load a bomb on a truck and cross that border. But it would be easier to load a bomb in a cargo ship halfway 'round the world, ship it directly to the heart of one of the largest US cities, and remotely detonate the bomb.

Here's a piece about security in Dubai's model port:

The New York Times
February 26, 2006
Gaps in Security Stretch From Model Port in Dubai to U.S.

By HASSAN M. FATTAH and ERIC LIPTON
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 25 — To some American officials, the sprawling port along the Persian Gulf here, where steel shipping containers are stacked row after row as far as the eye can see, is a model for the post-9/11 world.

Fences enclose the port's perimeter, which is patrolled by guards. Gamma-ray scanners peek inside containers to make sure they carry the clothing, aluminum, timber and other goods listed on shipping records. Radiation detectors search for any hidden nuclear material.

But those antiterrorism measures still fall far short of what is needed to ensure security, American government auditors and maritime experts say.

The scanning devices, for example, can check only a small fraction of the millions of containers that flow through here every year. The radiation detectors most likely would not pick up a key radioactive ingredient in a nuclear bomb, even if it was just modestly shielded. And the system that selects containers for inspection relies upon often-incomplete data.

In short, even at this model port, the security regimen set up in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, largely at the request of the United States government, is far from enough to address the vulnerabilities that make ports still such an attractive terrorist target.

It explains why so many port experts consider as misplaced the furor that erupted this week over whether Dubai Ports World, the government-owned company that operates this port, should be allowed to take over management of terminals in six American cities.

The trouble is not focused at the end of the line — the port terminal at the American shore. It is spread up and down the supply chain at critical points across the globe, no matter what the United States government and partners like United Arab Emirates have so far tried.

Security experts say the far more profound issue is the wide distance between what is needed for effective monitoring in terms of technology and programs versus what is on the ground.

"The goals that have been established are the right ones," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who is the chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "We do need to extend our borders and push the threat from our shores. But the implementation has been flawed and thus cannot deliver on the promise of the programs."

Some are even harsher in assessing progress in safeguarding ports worldwide.

"Port security today is still a house of cards," said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander. "For each of these programs, the bar is not very high and there is very little in the way of verification. The result is it is not much of an effective deterrent."

More than 25 years ago, the Jebel Ali Port, here at the northern end of Dubai, was little more than a stretch of desert sand. Now, it is the world's 11th largest container port, where 16,000 vessels dock every year, moving more than 7.5 million containers in and out.

The government of the United Arab Emirates, a close ally of the United States, has cooperated over the last few years in imposing new security measures requested by United States customs and Coast Guard officials. Those changes came mostly after Sept. 11 and after the Dubai port had been used as a transfer point for equipment on its way to Libya that was intended to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.

* * *


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/national/26port.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print


Mariner

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This piece says the furor is misplaced. That means they're for the deal. Where are you mariner? What do you believe?

 

[dilloduck]

What about Congress getting of the fat asses and doing something?

Seriously, if they have now decided that the have some common ground ( national security) and they are in fact veto proof together, where are they? Mighty chicken shit to lay it all at the presidents feet don't ya think?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Seriously, if they have now decided that the have some common ground ( national security) and they are in fact veto proof together, where are they? Mighty chicken shit to lay it all at the presidents feet don't ya think?

Yes. I'd be behind whoever stands up this, on this issue. Looks like nobody will.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This piece says the furor is misplaced. That means they're for the deal. Where are you mariner? What do you believe?

Mariner has no clue. He wants to be against it cuz bush is for it, but we're against it..... "oh my god I have no core self"

 

[dilloduck]

Mariner has no clue. He wants to be against it cuz bush is for it, but we're against it..... "oh my god I have no core self"

you got it!