Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 258
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    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.
    I guess that is a possibility...but that may ignore certain security factors that they know. (i.e. if company X doesn't pose a particular risk, you probably wouldn't spend the resources protecting against it.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #162  
    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.

    Well, im not trying to imply that i have any info that the public doesnt have access to. thats never been my claim here. What it all boils down to are the security arrangements. If in fact we can be assured that operations will go on with no changes in security protocol, than i could be more at ease with this - cautiously. i realize that no system is 100% foolproof, but if anything, should we actually improve security in any way within this arrangement, that would be a significant plus. as long as we dont compromise our safety - thats my whole issue here.
  3. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    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.
    i would hope you are not implying i am among those hoping something horrible happens just for an "i told you so" moment. please, that is without a doubt the last thing i would ever hope for! if it turns out things run smoothly without issues, ill have no problem saying this was in fact a good transaction, and that my previous misgivings were unfounded. the last thing id want is for a disaster to happen just to prove a point. thats a horrible assumption to make.
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    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.

    "Coast Guard intelligence officials in December raised the prospect of significant security risks associated with the takeover of some American port operations by a Dubai company, saying in a previously undisclosed document that broad "intelligence gaps" prevented them from even assessing the possibility of a terror threat.

    "The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the document released today at a Senate briefing into the port deal. It showed that Coast Guard analysts were worried about the backgrounds of employees of the company, Dubai Ports World, as well as the potential for foreign influences over the American ports and their use for terror operations.

    The excerpt from the Coast Guard analysis was in contrast to the Bush administration's assertions that the federal agencies responsible for reviewing the potential takeover offered no major objections, negating the need for an additional 45-day security review. The company has now been agreed to the additional review in the wake of the Congressional furor over the port deal."
  5. #165  
    I think most people feel that way, I wasn't implying you.

    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    i would hope you are not implying i am among those hoping something horrible happens just for an "i told you so" moment. please, that is without a doubt the last thing i would ever hope for! if it turns out things run smoothly without issues, ill have no problem saying this was in fact a good transaction, and that my previous misgivings were unfounded. the last thing id want is for a disaster to happen just to prove a point. thats a horrible assumption to make.
    Last edited by Advance The Man; 02/27/2006 at 08:06 PM.
  6. #166  
    from abcnews.com "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment"

    Are they saying they may not even trust the current ('P&O') British company?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "Coast Guard intelligence officials in December raised the prospect of significant security risks associated with the takeover of some American port operations by a Dubai company, saying in a previously undisclosed document that broad "intelligence gaps" prevented them from even assessing the possibility of a terror threat.

    "The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the document released today at a Senate briefing into the port deal. It showed that Coast Guard analysts were worried about the backgrounds of employees of the company, Dubai Ports World, as well as the potential for foreign influences over the American ports and their use for terror operations.

    The excerpt from the Coast Guard analysis was in contrast to the Bush administration's assertions that the federal agencies responsible for reviewing the potential takeover offered no major objections, negating the need for an additional 45-day security review. The company has now been agreed to the additional review in the wake of the Congressional furor over the port deal."
  7. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    from abcnews.com "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment"

    Are they saying they may not even trust the current ('P&O') British company?
    I don't know but this I know for sure...the only person ultimately responsible for our safety is ourselves. We have the burden alone and we can't blame anybody else for letting things fall through the cracks.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #168  
    Agreed. Was pointing out it appears Coast Guard was saying they couldn't assert that any other country than ours was safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't know but this I know for sure...the only person ultimately responsible for our safety is ourselves. We have the burden alone and we can't blame anybody else for letting things fall through the cracks.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #169  
    Well this seems to go against the Bush policies

    "The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned"

    I wonder how many folks are going to change their position on the selling of the operations now. It seems that the majority of those in favor (just cause Bush wants it) are pro Israel and those opposed are anti-Israel.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. #170  
  11. #171  
    ------------------------
    In what liberals are calling a "rare display of cojones by the MSM," CNN's Lou Dobbs has publicly called out the state-owned Dubai Ports World, the company at the center of the ports controversy, for trying to get CNN to silence him:

    “Dubai Ports World tonight is making what I consider to be a rather astonishing new attempt to silence me and our coverage of this ports deal and our reporting of what at least I consider to be legitimate national security concerns about this transaction. Dubai Ports World has actually refused to grant CNN anymore interviews from Washington or London, and it's refused to allow CNN to videotape its operations in the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong if we were to show you the video on this broadcast.”

    He also said that this was "not the first time that Dubai Ports World has tried to silence" him, and added the following:

    “Well, let me assure you that this latest attempt to silence our reporting and to explore the national security interests just like their last effort won't succeed. CNN's management, to its great credit, says it won't comply with any of Dubai Port World's demands, and I'll guarantee you that we're going to continue to report on the facts of this deal, we're going to continue to analyze it, we're going to continue to absolutely scrutinize our elected officials and administration officials who, in some cases, are not being straightforward about the national security interests and the reasons motivating this deal.”
    ------------------------

    Watch the video
  12. #172  
    Strange if true.
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man

    backroom deals for the political an economic gain of an individual or individuals at the expense of a country?

    I see it happening....
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  14. #174  
    If you find that to be true, cite the source it should be good bathroom material.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    backroom deals for the political an economic gain of an individual or individuals at the expense of a country?

    I see it happening....
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    backroom deals for the political an economic gain of an individual or individuals at the expense of a country?

    I see it happening....
    Pretty strong accusation, do you have any details or proof?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #176  
    Some more info on the Coast Guard Intelligence

    Vice Admiral Terry Cross, vice commandant of the Coast Guard, said in a statement on Tuesday that his agency's initial review had identified the gaps but additional information and assurances it had received confirmed the takeover did not pose a significant threat.

    "In fact, the Coast Guard will have more information about the affected terminals under DPW ownership than it currently does under P&O's ownership," he said.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Not more backroom deals for personal gain.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18. #178  
    I don't think refusing to grant interviews and restricting video taping on their premises is all that bad. I mean, the President won't grant me an interview and the last time I tried taping inside Intel, I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms.

    Dobbs is right that they aren't being friendly and perhaps are being uncooperative, but silencing? Something tells me if they really wanted to, they could.
  19. #179  
    Depends if they aren't granting interviews to any media outlets. If they are being pointed out than that is just wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I don't think refusing to grant interviews and restricting video taping on their premises is all that bad. I mean, the President won't grant me an interview and the last time I tried taping inside Intel, I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms.

    Dobbs is right that they aren't being friendly and perhaps are being uncooperative, but silencing? Something tells me if they really wanted to, they could.
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I don't think refusing to grant interviews and restricting video taping on their premises is all that bad. I mean, the President won't grant me an interview and the last time I tried taping inside Intel, I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms.

    Dobbs is right that they aren't being friendly and perhaps are being uncooperative, but silencing? Something tells me if they really wanted to, they could.
    Yeah, there's a lot of talk these days about making government operations more transparent. While I agree in principal, I don't think National Defense is the place to start.

Posting Permissions