Posted on 02/25/2006 8:55:35 PM PST by Carl/NewsMax
ping
First off, DPW will not be taking over any port. They will be leasing terminals at US owned and operated ports.
Second, we have home grown terrorists, so should we stop dealing with US companies? DPW had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did the UAE Government.
That doesn't matter, it's all meaningless. Or so we'll be told shortly.
"According to a report in Vanity Fair magazine, Chinese operatives nabbed in the sting explained that they were ready to smuggle in everything from grenade launchers to surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747.""
Is there any evidence that the ChiComs are trying to stockpile small arms and man portable missiles in the US?
I gotta assume this whole article is tongue in cheek. You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously.
thank god you're all back. I thought for sure we'd been swallowed by the DU.
"Second, we have home grown terrorists, so should we stop dealing with US companies? DPW had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did the UAE Government."
Objection to DPW running port operations in these places is not about NOT POLICING for security risks; it's about eliminating unnecessary risks where they can be removed. Why would we add one more item to check to an already lax port security system?
We have this one side arguing that since they're already there, nothing is wrong with keeping them there. We have another, much smaller side, arguing that they're a bunch of A-rabs and we need `em out out out! And there are those of us who simply point out that, as Krauthammer admits, that this is one more risk we don't need to take. Krauthammer says that having made the deal, we need to go through with it. I say that, having made mistakes, we need to correct them, and remove security risks like the UAE and Hutchison-Whampoa as well as any other foreign operators in our ports. Simply have American companies run the ports, and there will be no issues with discrimination--we'll just eliminate from consideration everyone who isn't American, at least when it comes to managing national security assets. After all, the government does that in hiring for its most sensitive jobs, every single day.
This whole thing is starting to remind me of the McCarthy era. Except that this time, I feel like most of the GOP is on the wrong side.
"I gotta assume this whole article is tongue in cheek. You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously."
I was thinking the same thing BUMP.
We might have a problem here again - apparently they are taking over 21 ports, not 6.
http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't.
it's about eliminating unnecessary risks where they can be removed. Why would we add one more item to check to an already lax port security system?
There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe.
You folks need to stop reading the crap the media is putting out.
No one is taking over any ports. DPW is buying a UK company and acquiring the leases to 22 terminals at various ports around the US.
Sorry, they are taking over P&O Operations at 6 ports, (is that better): But, my point is that the contract involves alot more than 6 ports, The media has not been mentioning the additional 15 ports
"If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't."
But Rush and everyone pushing the deal seem so certain that no actual employees will be different, that the only people involved are top functionaries simply collecting profits. Why is it so tough to get some other company to do THAT work?
"There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe."
Zero risk involved. Check. Merely a perceived risk. Check. Ports secure. Check.
[KAFF, HACK, BLAAARF]
Sorry, I couldn't swallow all that. I know we check 100% of our incoming stuff for radioactivity. I know we check our high risk stuff before it even leaves the foreign port. What I don't know is that simply having the operational plans for the ports in any UAE given citizen's hands would merely a perceived risk. I think it's an actual risk, and I'm a tad biased, sure, but I'm not willing to agree that we should gamble on a 'perceived risk' when we can simply tell foreign companies that in these certain areas, we don't deal in 'perceived risks.' And I don't buy that our ports are secure--they probably ARE more secure than the MSM is painting them, but until we're sure of every container, they're not as secure as they should be in a time of war.
Yes they are. They have gotten the story wrong from the beginning.
Feel free to start up an American company that can or contact one you think can and ask them why they don't.
Sorry, I couldn't swallow all that.
Understood; a Rasmussen poll was taken the other day, and it showed that 83% of Americans are clueless about the operation of our ports.
Thank you for posting that very informative article. It should be the subject of its own thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.