Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 258
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    T2, so this terrorist sypathizer would not consider applying at the port under current operations? Come on, that is a stretch. I agree the sale may not be in the best interest, but mainly because I disagree with a foreign gov't controlled company operating the ports.
    The danger is in having an intimate view of port operations. That allows one to locate security holes. There's a reason most people are scratching their heads over this decision.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    T2, so this terrorist sypathizer would not consider applying at the port under current operations? Come on, that is a stretch. I agree the sale may not be in the best interest, but mainly because I disagree with a foreign gov't controlled company operating the ports.
    Maybe they do and they are caught under those other companies based on their procedures (no one would ever really know.)

    This may be a stretch (most likely because I have no real knowledge of port security) but the simple fact remains that it is enough of a risk (whatever risk that might be) for HS to want/demand concessions and to not automatically sign off on the deal.

    A couple of you on this thread are focusing on the exact scenario of how the risk is increased...that's fine, but that really isn't my point. My point is only this: The risk will change/and or increase with Dubai controlling the ports. (IMO) That is the only logical, rational conclusion that can be drawn from HS not signing off on this at first and then demanding concessions. If nothing truly would have changed with Dubai running things, then someone please explain HS's position?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The danger is in having an intimate view of port operations. That allows one to locate security holes. There's a reason most people are scratching their heads over this decision.
    Glad no one can see the security hole in only about 5% of containers being inspected now. Glad, that there is no way a terrorist can infiltrate the British company now (with even less security measures in place). If the media reported more accurate information I think fewer poeple would be scratching their head. The port itself is not being sold, the port operations are currently being run by a foreign country, the company that bid the highest won the contract (not an under the table deal with the President). Agree or disagree with the company change all you want, but at least use reasonable arguments.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The danger is in having an intimate view of port operations. That allows one to locate security holes. There's a reason most people are scratching their heads over this decision.
    Absolutely right! The American longshoremen that would be working for this AYRAB company will spend all of their lengthy breaks observing patrol patterns, etc.

    This whole sorry affair demonstrates a 1) tone deaf White House staff and 2) Dems using the media to play to the ignorance of their voters.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Maybe they do and they are caught under those other companies based on their procedures (no one would ever really know.)

    This may be a stretch (most likely because I have no real knowledge of port security) but the simple fact remains that it is enough of a risk (whatever risk that might be) for HS to want/demand concessions and to not automatically sign off on the deal.

    A couple of you on this thread are focusing on the exact scenario of how the risk is increased...that's fine, but that really isn't my point. My point is only this: The risk will change/and or increase with Dubai controlling the ports. (IMO) That is the only logical, rational conclusion that can be drawn from HS not signing off on this at first and then demanding concessions. If nothing truly would have changed with Dubai running things, then someone please explain HS's position?
    IMO, every business negotiation that could have security impact is going to be reviewed and the new contract will have to increase security procedures. I think if the current company kept the operations HS would require additional safegaurds to be put in place.

    I would much prefer a company from the US have the contract, but unfortuantely that is not reality.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The danger is in having an intimate view of port operations. That allows one to locate security holes. There's a reason most people are scratching their heads over this decision.
    DaT, I thought you were the "what if" monitor. You have gone to the dark side that you so readily point out on others views.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    IMO, every business negotiation that could have security impact is going to be reviewed and the new contract will have to increase security procedures.
    If a different company was chosen and didnt provide any increased threat, you still advocate an increase in security procedures simply because it's a different company? Kind of wasteful dont you think? Wouldnt resources (which aren't limitless) be wasted changing a policy just to change it?

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I think if the current company kept the operations HS would require additional safegaurds to be put in place.
    Maybe...but we have no proof of that? We can only go by what the HS has done in this scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I would much prefer a company from the US have the contract, but unfortuantely that is not reality.
    I actually don't care if things are offshored...yes I want the US to prosper, but I am by no means a union guy.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The danger is in having an intimate view of port operations. That allows one to locate security holes. There's a reason most people are scratching their heads over this decision.

    this is precisely my concern.
  9. #149  
    Question for you or dat. What is the concern? What info can you get that the public doesn't have access to? I did a quick internet search for Seattle port and found aerials, specific cruise terminal locations, who owns what warehouses, etc. I feel it comes down to security, which UAE is not controlling. Again, I am open to changing my opinion with a concrete example of a security breach. I think it is safe to say every news outlet (rightfully so) is searching for this potential breach.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    this is precisely my concern.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Question for you or dat. What is the concern? What info can you get that the public doesn't have access to? I did a quick internet search for Seattle port and found aerials, specific cruise terminal locations, who owns what warehouses, etc. I feel it comes down to security, which UAE is not controlling. Again, I am open to changing my opinion with a concrete example of a security breach. I think it is safe to say every news outlet (rightfully so) is searching for this potential breach.

    I wonder if DA was "concerned" when the ChiComs started running Long Beach?

    I suspect he's "concerned" about this the same way that he is "concerned" about the welfare of American military personnel.
  11. #151  
    While I won't defend dat, I don't think he is a poster here that would want anything horrible to happen. That said there may be a couple posters that would love just that. I simply don't think dat is one of them. He appears to be confused again.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I wonder if DA was "concerned" when the ChiComs started running Long Beach?

    I suspect he's "concerned" about this the same way that he is "concerned" about the welfare of American military personnel.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If a different company was chosen and didnt provide any increased threat, you still advocate an increase in security procedures simply because it's a different company? Kind of wasteful dont you think? Wouldnt resources (which aren't limitless) be wasted changing a policy just to change it?

    Maybe...but we have no proof of that? We can only go by what the HS has done in this scenario.

    I actually don't care if things are offshored...yes I want the US to prosper, but I am by no means a union guy.
    Yes, I believe (hope) that all operations will be srutinized in an effort to increase security. If it was changing a policy to change it (sounds like military policy) then yes it is a waste. If it is to enhance security, as this appears to be, then no it is not a waste of resources.

    You argue there was a reason to change (enhance) the security policy because it was a company from Dubai, then use a scenario about changing policy to change policy . Which do you think it was for security purpose or just to change policy?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Glad no one can see the security hole in only about 5% of containers being inspected now. Glad, that there is no way a terrorist can infiltrate the British company now (with even less security measures in place). If the media reported more accurate information I think fewer poeple would be scratching their head. The port itself is not being sold, the port operations are currently being run by a foreign country, the company that bid the highest won the contract (not an under the table deal with the President). Agree or disagree with the company change all you want, but at least use reasonable arguments.

    I agree that the security currently suks. The Congressional Democrats have been focused on the need for more port security the past 2 years.

    There's a difference between the English managing the ports and the gov't leaders who write checks to Bin Laden.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Question for you or dat. What is the concern? What info can you get that the public doesn't have access to? I did a quick internet search for Seattle port and found aerials, specific cruise terminal locations, who owns what warehouses, etc. I feel it comes down to security, which UAE is not controlling. Again, I am open to changing my opinion with a concrete example of a security breach. I think it is safe to say every news outlet (rightfully so) is searching for this potential breach.
    Let's say you're in charge of the management of a highrise building but not it's security. You're honstly going to tell me you would not be in a better position to find security holes than if you were not in charge of managing said building?

    Here's a great gem from today:
    "Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday."
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Let's say you're in charge of the management of a highrise building but not it's security. You're honstly going to tell me you would not be in a better position to find security holes than if you were not in charge of managing said building?

    Here's a great gem from today:
    "Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday."
    The were unable to determine. Are they able to determine if a Martha Stewart-owned company might support terrorist operations?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #156  
    Does the Coast Guard get into intelligence? I don't think they do. They are unable to determine whether UAE is a potential problem b/c they typically stay within three miles of the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Here's a great gem from today:
    "Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday."
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Yes, I believe (hope) that all operations will be srutinized in an effort to increase security. If it was changing a policy to change it (sounds like military policy) then yes it is a waste. If it is to enhance security, as this appears to be, then no it is not a waste of resources.

    You argue there was a reason to change (enhance) the security policy because it was a company from Dubai, then use a scenario about changing policy to change policy . Which do you think it was for security purpose or just to change policy?
    I might be misunderstanding you...so just to clarify:

    Im not saying that there was (or is) a reason to change security policies just because Dubai might be running the show. I am merely pointing out that Homeland Security must have thought that there was an increased risk with Dubai because they wouldn't sign off on the deal until Dubai made concessions (if someone has another plausible conclusion, please share...Im all ears.)

    I am only throwing this out there because some have argued that this is much to do about nothing. If that truly were the case, HS wouldnt have raised a flag and demanded concessions. My point is that this debate isnt totally baseless...there are issues there and it doesnt matter what side of the isle you vote from.

    And where did I do this: use a scenario about changing policy to change policy ?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I might be misunderstanding you...so just to clarify:

    Im not saying that there was (or is) a reason to change security policies just because Dubai might be running the show. I am merely pointing out that Homeland Security must have thought that there was an increased risk with Dubai because they wouldn't sign off on the deal until Dubai made concessions (if someone has another plausible conclusion, please share...Im all ears.)

    I am only throwing this out there because some have argued that this is much to do about nothing. If that truly were the case, HS wouldnt have raised a flag and demanded concessions. My point is that this debate isnt totally baseless...there are issues there and it doesnt matter what side of the isle you vote from.

    And where did I do this: use a scenario about changing policy to change policy ?
    I am saying that in the environment we live in today we should constantly review security procedures and adjust as needed. I have not been convinced that this was not the case with the sell of the port operations company. HS reviewed procedures in place now, and determined that there was room for improvement that they could accomplish during the transfer of operations. It is easier to implement policy change during a transition then it is in the middle of a contract (ask TO and the Eagles ).

    I interpreted your post earlier as saying it was a change for change sake vs a change for security sake. My bad.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am saying that in the environment we live in today we should constantly review security procedures and adjust as needed.
    Totally agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I have not been convinced that this was not the case with the sell of the port operations company. HS reviewed procedures in place now, and determined that there was room for improvement that they could accomplish during the transfer of operations. It is easier to implement policy change during a transition then it is in the middle of a contract (ask TO and the Eagles ).
    While this is true, the triggering event was that it was a new company taking over (in this case Dubai). If I am understanding you correctly, you are characterizing the HS recommendations as something they would have done anyway, regardless of who was taking over the port. I guess that is plausible, but it seems more likely that HS customized these particular recommendations based on its threat assessment (whatever that might be.) I can't imagine that HS would have the same security requirements regardless of who was running the port.

    As far as your point about implementing change, I agree but I don't think the US would allow themselves to be handcuffed by a bad contract if there truly was a security threat simply because we have a contract (and I am sure the US has provisions in these contracts to be able to make changes in procedures on the fly, especially with todays risks).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Totally agree.

    While this is true, the triggering event was that it was a new company taking over (in this case Dubai). If I am understanding you correctly, you are characterizing the HS recommendations as something they would have done anyway, regardless of who was taking over the port. I guess that is plausible, but it seems more likely that HS customized these particular recommendations based on its threat assessment (whatever that might be.) I can't imagine that HS would have the same security requirements regardless of who was running the port.

    As far as your point about implementing change, I agree but I don't think the US would allow themselves to be handcuffed by a bad contract if there truly was a security threat simply because we have a contract (and I am sure the US has provisions in these contracts to be able to make changes in procedures on the fly, especially with todays risks).
    Sounds like we pretty much agree, I just think that HS would have put the extra security in place with the transition regardless of the new companies location.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions