"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away
this latest screw-up of you know who.

No, I don't buy that. Most likely, if GB had stepped in during the
acquisition phase and announced that no Arab entity was going to be
allowed to run the subject port operations, the media and you-know-whos
would be all over him for further alienating our few remaining Arab
allies. He can't win.

I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

RCE


Of course, he could've quietly held the deal hostage until OBL was handed
over. This would've achieved two good things at once. First, it would've
cranked his approval ratings so high, he could've announced OBL's capture
while simultaneously butt ****ing a toddler on TV, and it wouldn't have
mattered. Second, he could've made the UAE look really good when he
explained that "they assisted".

Sadly, two is twice as many things as the idiot can probably handle at once.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:28:47 -0500, RCE wrote:


I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

That article raised a question to me. It seemed to state that the Coast
Guard inspects the ships and containers before they get to port. I've
seen loaded container ships. Those containers are stacked quite high, and
quite tightly. I'm wondering how it's possible to inspect containers on a
loaded ship. Anyone know?

If interested, a whole bunch of container ship pictures can be accessed
he

http://members.tripod.com/shumsw/

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:35:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.


No problem. I'm glad to see the shining of the light.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:48:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.
Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.



There is still a residue of people in this country who "believe" in
Bush; Herring is one of them.

Harry, can you find the one and only place where I gave my opinion of this
action?

Then, can you find *any* other place in this thread where I've said
*anything* about supporting Bush?

I think not.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:28:47 -0500, RCE wrote:



I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.


That article raised a question to me. It seemed to state that the Coast
Guard inspects the ships and containers before they get to port. I've
seen loaded container ships. Those containers are stacked quite high, and
quite tightly. I'm wondering how it's possible to inspect containers on a
loaded ship. Anyone know?

If interested, a whole bunch of container ship pictures can be accessed
he

http://members.tripod.com/shumsw/


My home port is one of the 'CSI" ports and the US pushed us into buying
one of those mobile giant container scanning machines a few years back.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...arg_inspect.ht

Harry Krause wrote:

Now that Iraq is exploding, you think we'll be basing there long-term?

Not likely.

Rumsfeld was on Charlie Rose a week or so ago and I was
surprised to hear him state that we would not maintain any
permanent bases in Iraq.

I couldn't tell if reality was sinking in or he just thought
he could get away with a lie.

-rick-

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html




However, let's face it - if we can hire, train and allow green card
foreigners to "secure" airports for the TSA, what's the difference between
that and letting an Dubai corporation run our ports.

I've love to know what the reaction would have been if Halliburton was
given the contract.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:50:42 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:01:24 GMT in rec.boats, Shortwave Sportfishing
penned the following thoughts:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:48:20 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Quit trying to spin this. The whole concept is just wrong. Not only
just PLAIN wrong.... it is wrong for America.

I've been watching this thread with some interest because I regard it
as strictly business, but here's a question for you Gene - which US
company could do the job?

Halliburton? :)

A well taken point.... and I suspect those intent on selecting either
option either don't have their attention focused on what is best for
the US and/or have a private agenda.

As for ANY company doing the job, one needs to consider that no
corporation holds as its priority it customers (in this case, the
American citizens and government), but logically owes allegiance
solely to its stockholders. Thus, privatization is not the panacea
that some would wish you to believe.

To me this port deal is a lot like mail ordering a car from North
Korea and expecting a good product and good customer service. It is
hard enough to get a good product and ensuing support from Ford and GM
and I can walk to their place of business.

Gene, what is it that you fear the Dubai folks would allow through our
ports?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:37:04 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html


Thanks for adding a little realism to this discussion.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:37:04 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:15:26 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


I'm not sure a lot of US citizens understood that their ports have been
run by foreign companies for many years. Which makes it more of a
"horror" if they did.

Administering a port is a difficult task and one that requires a lot of
coordination between shipping companies, port authorities and shipping
agencies. I'm not sure exactly what we can do about it because it's a
specialized type of activity and one that does require expertise.

"Administering a port" may be an exaggeration. Operating a terminal seems
more like it. Apparently, at the six "ports" in question, there are 300
terminals, of which Dubai Ports is going to operate *nine*.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/131844.shtml


Personally, I would prefer American companies to run our ports, but,
unfortunately, globalization has seen to that. However, it can be argued
that Americans will still be running these ports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E36375,00.html


Thanks for adding a little realism to this discussion.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

I thought you just chastised others for their political posts John.

Are the ones you partake in ok but the other ones not?

Giddyup Sheriff.