Ports

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

OK, about half of the Congressional Republicans and most Democrats (except Jimmy Carter???) are up in arms over the security implications of President Bush OK'ing the sale of some US port operations to a foreign business based in the U.A.E. But wait a minute, those port operations are already owned a foreign company - the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. What am I missing here?

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Media Hype http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

One thing I just love about the media. If terrorists or anyone else for that matter, wants to perpetrate a crime, and are not sure how to do it, ..all they have to do is watch the news to find out what the best way is. http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Andrea]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, about half of the Congressional Republicans and most Democrats (except Jimmy Carter???) are up in arms over the security implications of President Bush OK'ing the sale of some US port operations to a foreign business based in the U.A.E. But wait a minute, those port operations are already owned a foreign company - the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess because this company is run by ARABS.

This is NOT a good idea. Why can't a company from the UNITED STATES run this port??????

Why does it have to be foreign???

This makes no sense to me.

[Swamphunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, about half of the Congressional Republicans and most Democrats (except Jimmy Carter???) are up in arms over the security implications of President Bush OK'ing the sale of some US port operations to a foreign business based in the U.A.E. But wait a minute, those port operations are already owned a foreign company - the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess because this company is run by ARABS.

This is NOT a good idea. Why can't a company from the UNITED STATES run this port??????

Why does it have to be foreign???

This makes no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree...I am a big supporter of the current administration and a Republican... probably more of a right wing conservative than Sean Hannity, but this is stupid if you ask me. Absolutely stupid!

[johnf]

Couldn't agree more swamphunter. Seems like an invitation for desaster.

[EKYhunter]

I am not a supporter but I agree it's STUPID!

[slugshooter]

We talked about this in my terrorism class today. True, the company is already foreign owned, it is a London based company, so the critique can't be because it's a foreign owned entity. Also, the security of our ports will still be incumbent on the United States. All the UAE company would be doing would be the same as the London company, managing the logistics of ships coming in and out of the port. One of the problems that can be seen coming out of this is the fact that while the company must turn over any documents on demand to US authorities in anticipation of a possible threat, the documents will be in the UAE, which, the documents would have been in London, but I think that it's probably a lot easier to get them from London to here than vice versa. I think part of the problem stems from it being an Arab run country versus European.

As far as our ports are concerned. I feel that there is where we are most vulnerable for an attack. An attack could be hatched and executed months before it actually occurs because of the vulnerability and lack of security at our ports. Here are some enlightening figures from one of my books entitled "Terrorism, Assymetric Warfare, and Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Anthony Cordesman.

The U.S. has nearly 100,000 miles of shoreline and 6000 miles of borders.

475 million people and 142 million trucks cross the border every year.

There are 21.4 million major container sized cargo shipments per year.

Legal trade into the U.S. arrives daily at 3,700 terminals in 301 ports of entry.

Most air forwarding containers are processed without inspection.

Containers can enter duty-free areas at U.S. ports and sit there for thirty days before a formal customs declaration.

Roughly 8 million containers enter the U.S. each year.

One container takes an average of 5 inspectors three hours to search

On average, one container enters Southern California every 20 seconds, almost none are searched.

7000 trucks entered Detroit from Windsor, Ontario in one day in February 2000 with a customs clearance time for each truck being an average of 12 seconds.

[hunterDWL]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't agree more swamphunter. Seems like an invitation for desaster.

[/ QUOTE ]


ditto

[Master_Chief]

Having dealt with alot of contracts I don't really think the President was involved in the contract.

Can you imagine if he had to review every contract that Defense, DHS etc used?

There are thousands. I think this is out of control.

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

Just a tid bit here, I don't know the exact numbers how many of you realize that the US Military prefers to use Ports of entry already owned and operated by this company? the majority of deployed troops today entered the Mid East through this companies ports of entry. I cant recall one single incident of failed security.

[stevebeilgard]

why don't we just step back, look at all the details, and make an intelligent informed decision in a month or so.

[AllArmyoutdoorsSD]

An informed and rational decision???? Is it possible???? The public is very seldom allowed all the information about any thing the media reports. I agree, just wish we could get the whole story not just what someone wants us to hear.

[Master_Chief]

[ QUOTE ]
why don't we just step back, look at all the details, and make an intelligent informed decision in a month or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now wouldn't that be nice to see. Not only in this situation but all things.

[LETMGROW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why don't we just step back, look at all the details, and make an intelligent informed decision in a month or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now wouldn't that be nice to see. Not only in this situation but all things.

[/ QUOTE ] The real problem here is the media in general. They skew the facts to make anything newsy enough to get our attention but seldom have the complete facts about anything. I can't believe G.W. would allow us to compromise our safety.
You can be thankful Dan Rather isn't reporting anymore. Ol' Rather biased would have a field day with this!

[goose21]

im a huge republican and a big supporter of bush
and agree with this

guys look at it this way

if Arabs are running the ports, do u really still think they would have an incentive to blow it up

they are not going to blow up there own business

true it is still a US port but if the terrorists blow it up then they would only be hurting the ones that they are not after

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
An informed and rational decision???? Is it possible???? The public is very seldom allowed all the information about any thing the media reports. I agree, just wish we could get the whole story not just what someone wants us to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely the president did not make this decision knowing that it could potetentially make us that much more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Maybe he has some reasoning.