Posted on 03/09/2006 10:42:42 AM PST by navysealdad
Thanks so much for this info. It confirms what I'd suspected. And sorry for the delayed response--work keeps intefering with my Freeping!
I think we should try to make sure (if we're not already doing so) that appropriate security precautions are taken at the point of departure. Of course, it's a lot easier to do that with planes than with ships. It's only a small percentage of shipping that gets inspected at either end. Security isn't anywhere near as airtight with ships and their innumerable containers.
In any case, though, the current controversy is only over port operations. No one's suggesting turning away ships from the UAE.
No, I don't suggest that. But our Congressmorons might.
"I'd rather we attracted the investment here in the US to continue to build our economy rather than having people investing in China."
People invest in China because they see the money they're making off the US market. A lot of investment goes into manufacturing and support for exports to the United States. A well-designed protectionist policy would also have the ripple-effect of reducing China's value as a place to invest. Companies would rather earn some profit than no profit. If they're expecting that tariffs were going to gradually be increased to the point that it will become cheaper to make their products in the United States, they will immediately start re-investing the massive profits they currently are earning to build/move those manufacturing assets in advance.
"However, our high taxes, inefficient and expensive manufacturing, and to some extent protectionism is making investing elsewhere more attractive."
High taxes are definitely a problem, but even moves to high-efficiency manfacturing in many areas would not be enough due to the insurmountable wage/regulation/currency-value differences between the US and China. Those cost differences are what can, and should be, wiped out through the use of tariffs.
"Honda can make cars in the US and make money doing it. Ford and GM can't."
And what percentage of those Honda vehicles are of foreign content? There's a considerable cost difference between final assembly of imported parts and final assembly of domestically made parts.
"The United States started out from British Colonies. The US was originally one big British foreign investment. We didn't go our first 170 years without foreign investment. We were a foreign investment that rebelled because we were treated unfairly."
And that experience is what pushed the Founding Fathers towards protectionism, further reinforced by the economic damage of the War of 1812.
"One is we definitely have abundant natural resources. However, in addition to that we invested in being able to harvest those resources efficiently. We built the infrastructure to be able to move those resources where they needed to go quickly and efficiently."
The overwhelming majority of natural-resource investment, and the infrastructure for it, were the results of the domestic demand of satisfying protectionism-induced American industry.
"Many, many important inventions have come from the United States because we learned to invest in technology and invest in the people and the resources we needed to continue to improve how we do things."
Yes, a lot of it done here in the United States, by dollars from our internal market from American businesses. That's why though we were considerably protectionist, we still led the world in the number of inventions and level of technology.
"However, much also came from foreign investment, and as that foreign investment produced a good return, those foreign investors reinvested their profits in us companies or US branches of foreign companies because we had the world's fastest growing economy."
Only over the last 4 decades. Before that it was overwhelmingly internal market reinvestment.
"You can be protectionist in some aspects of your policies while being active internationally in other aspects of your policies."
The problem is we're barely being protectionist at all. Just look at the increasing dependence upon foreign parts for our military. If ANYPLACE we should have an absolute minimal dependence upon foreign imports it should be for the military. But within MRBM/cruise-missile range of China is enough sources that could bring practically all of our precision-guided weapons, aircraft, armored vehicle and ship combat systems manufacture to a grinding halt in 90 days or less.
"However, long term you're either relying on someone else to deal with the problems of fascists and communists. You're assuming that someone else will keep those who would control others through force in check."
Ah, but there's the problem. We're so fixated on small 3rd world nations with 4th rate militaries we're not even seeing the monster that we're growing with our own trade policies. In the short-term Islamofascism is the greatest enemy, in the long-term it is China that is our greatest threat. We either start choking them off now, or there will be no keeping them in check except through first-use of nuclear weapons.
"A isolationist government can't be a superpower. A protectionist government can be one, but they can't hold onto it unless their competitors are also protectionists and you have more resources than they do."
A nation with a well-designed protectionist policy can maintain world-power status. Can it prevent others from also building up to world-power status? Maybe not. But history itself has shown the massive protectionism-induced success of the United States that so far other nations have not been able to come close to matching without feeding off of American free trade policies or using well-designed protectionist policies themselves.
"We definitely became a world power because of our industrial power and infrastructure."
Which was overwhelmingly protectionism induced.
"That's exactly the kind of thing that China is doing to grow their economy. However, they're encouraging foreign investment to modernize their businesses, and not just heavy industry."
With the goal of building a nation capable of smashing the United States.
"However, killing the BD Ports deal is pure stupidity because it's being done for the wrong reasons. It's not being blocked for national security reasons. That should be abundantly clear to anyone who's paying attention to the details and who's watching how Congress is not trying to block the deal for things other than national security because the deal is passing muster on issues of security."
It's being killed because the politicians sense the general public is getting tired of relying on the Middle East, where their dollars are already getting used against them with each barrel of oil that we buy. Why give them another funding source? Regardless of how closely you try and monitor them, there is going to be money diverted to terrorism. It makes energy independence even more imperative, so we can cut them off completely.
We have ops there. And it is not 1000 miles from Iran.
LOL! :-)
We don't get our ships repaired and serviced in Qatar. We do get them repaired and serviced in the UAE. Incidentally, if we need the same level of work we can and do get in the UAE, would you care to guess where the ships would need to go?
Unless they closed it down also we had a yard in the PI's. There is also Perth which is roughly 6 days out. Have you ever been onboard a Navy ship when it's in the yards? If you have I think you could understand why using UAE is not such a good idea and neither is mooring deep draft ships at piers there.
But why not simply do the routine maintenance state side where security is not an issue? That yard isn't being used for emergency only it's doing routine work.
A brief history it was established with Newport News Shipbuilding being a share holder of about 30% the rest is owned by the UAE government. NNSBDD sold back their interest to UAE. IOW no USA vested interest in it's operations.
Closed in 1992 when the Filipinos kicked us out. Palaam, Navy!
There is also Perth which is roughly 6 days out.
Uh-huh. Add 12 days of non-availability. COMFIFTHFLEET would just LOVE you.
Have you ever been onboard a Navy ship when it's in the yards?
Yes.
If you have I think you could understand why using UAE is not such a good idea and neither is mooring deep draft ships at piers there.
Explain why the risk is that much higher in the UAE than in Perth or Subic--without using the Malkinesque "all Arabs are terrorist raghead motherf***ers" argument.
OK, sure! Let's send a ship back to Norfolk or Newport News! How many days off of the deployment cycle is THAT going to cost?
Didn't you know? All the Captain of the ship has to do nowadays is twitch his nose and voila from the Persian Gulf to Newport News in a second.
Oh, that's RIGHT!
Mayor Nagin spilled the beans about those supersonic aircraft carriers after Katrina! I forgot!
Explain to me of COLE hit was just a lucky guess or someone knew her basic layout. OK most CONUS yard workers are cleared meaning background checks done by our side. Many are prior service usually ex-Navy. Most snipes if they wished upon discharge could get a job in Norfolk. I turned one down myself.
The ship is basically opened up. That means lines and cables running through most critical WT hatches. Damage Control capabilities are zilch. Yards like NNSBDD and NNSY, Bremerton, etc are secure yards with many assets nearby to protect them. But most of all very few ships go down that can not make it back to CONUS for repairs.
Let's see now are we sending UAE nationals to our trade schools and company schools where vital security issues are discussed? Don't play the race card on me take your PC Cultural Marxism to someone else. I would say the same if this were China or many Central American nations and Mexico. Is that diverse enough for you?
Remember also most spaces on a ship are classified. That means that not even you if you are ex-Navy can go onboard. I remember when U.S. Marines guarded not only the yards but the Naval Bases.
You can put one person who does not belong on a ship and if they know what they are doing on let's say a conventional carrier they can put it DIW and dark and never go below the second deck or take one tool or weapon onboard with them to do this. I won't say how but it can in fact be done. Snipes and a few others know about it. We are supposed to be at war as such security should be tighter than ever. In my 4 years we moored in one foreign port at a pier and it at the time was a long trusted European ally. We didn't stay there long either. Anchoring two miles off means the ship can get underway in a very few short minutes on it's own power and steering. How quick? A carrier can be underway in less than 5 minutes in those conditions.
"OK, sure! Let's send a ship back to Norfolk or Newport News! How many days off of the deployment cycle is THAT going to cost?"
If you make sure there are enough warships available it won't matter. That's why cut-backs in warship numbers is stupidity. It shouldn't be a problem. If the ship needs routine yard work, another ship should be able to show up in it's place first. The UAE yards should only be used for emergency work.
We have secure yards in the MED with trusted allies. In all likely hood the ship in the yards has lost at least 30 days anyway to cut and reseal the decks depending on what had to be accessed. You just don't open a hatch and take out major equipment.
Yeah, they looked at one of the cutaway illustrations from Popular Mechanics when the first Burke was commissioned.
OK most CONUS yard workers are cleared meaning background checks done by our side. Many are prior service usually ex-Navy.
In other words, we're relying on the same institution that cleared Walker and Whitworth for access to cryptographic material for those background checks.
Have you been paying attention to the demographics of those "trusted allies?"
Also, you're assuming that the ship will be allowed to transit Suez (which, incidentally, is a huge risk in and of itself.)
In all likely hood the ship in the yards has lost at least 30 days anyway
"So what if we make it 60 days?"
Right and let's name who did this. Startiung in 1989 Poppy Bush/ Cheney/DEM Congress. 1992-1995 Clinton/Aspin/DEMCongress. 1996-2000 Clinton/Aspin/ GOP Congress. 2001-Present Bush/Rummy/GOP congress. Meaning there was plenty of time for the GOP to undo POPPY and Clintons damage to the fleet. So what is being done? We are loosing another carrier without replacement.
Oh thank you for opening up that subject. What about Ships Captains who are made Scapegoats for Pentagon and DOD failures? The Captains of the KENNEDY & KITTY HAWK come to mind. BTW Newport News usually builds except for such events as extended downtime's like refueling {up to 5 years}. Norfolk Naval Ship Yards usually services on the East Coast for the deep draft ships.
We are in this mess thanks to Poppy/Cheney, Clinton, and both parties sitting in congress during their terms who are still downsizing our military on all fronts. Name me one thing the GOP congress or Bush has done to increase the number of active duty commissioned UNITED STATES NAVY SHIPS. Show me where after 9/11 they incresed the active duty troop levels to deal with Iraq and No calling up the National Guards doesn't count.
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.