Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Threat? DOT allows Mexican Truckers to Operate in U.S.

  1. #1
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default Threat? DOT allows Mexican Truckers to Operate in U.S.

    In the last few days U.S. highways have been opened to Mexican truck drivers. At the same time another act of so called "sabotage" on a Mexican gas pipeline has been successfully perpetrated. A Mexican truck carrying explosives has exploded killing upwards of 40 people and wounding over a hundred. Regardless of the political motives of this Leftist group's motives they pose a plausible (probable) threat to U.S. security. Although I am not one to be into conspiracy theories I am concerned about the possibilities of certain nations (Venezuela, Iran or Syria via Venezuela) or groups (you can guess) using their capabilities and close position to the U.S.

    Related posts
    http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2294
    [URL="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3530"]
    Sorry, I don't know how to link it within the system.

    Here is my Question.
    [URL="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3530"]

    With the DOT allowing Mexican Truckers to drive in the U.S. has a there been a gross breach of our security?

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam L
    In the last few days U.S. highways have been opened to Mexican truck drivers. At the same time another act of so called "sabotage" on a Mexican gas pipeline has been successfully perpetrated. A Mexican truck carrying explosives has exploded killing upwards of 40 people and wounding over a hundred. Regardless of the political motives of this Leftist group's motives they pose a plausible (probable) threat to U.S. security...
    You are conflating several different issues in a manner that unrealistically distorts the level of risk. Sure, there is potential risk involved with the cross-border trucking program. However, your statement directly links it with the old-school bad guys blowing up the pipeline and interprets that (imagined) nexus as a probable threat to US security. "Probable" is a strong word in the world of threat analysis, and in this case the designation lacks any substance.

    However, there are certainly plenty of isolationists, opponents of free-trade and globalization, and others with an axe to grind who will dredge up all kinds of potential threats and manufacture one nexus of crime and mayhem after another in an attempt to build up enough political influence to put a halt to the agreement. However, many of these yokels tend to forget, or overlook, that the agreement also includes Mexico permitting US truckers to cross into their country for the first time ever. They certainly overlook many Mexican's perceptions of this agreement as an economic threat to their own trucking industry, in that they may not be able to compete once the door has been opened.

    We do have plenty of border security issues - and not just with Mexico. The trucking program is not a "gross breach of our security"- in and of itself it will not have a significantly negative impact upon the current state of US border security. There are other issues on the border that are far greater vulnerabilities.

  3. #3
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    823

    Default

    Let me ask you this; would it have been prudent for the FAA to ground airlines and flights in the United States originating in countries with Islamic alligience after 9/11? I'd say not.

    Further, I see no difference.

    The xenophobic stance this country has taken in recent years is a detriment to our society.
    Example is better than precept.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Too true. That and very ill advised and / or poorly

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    Let me ask you this; would it have been prudent for the FAA to ground airlines and flights in the United States originating in countries with Islamic alligience after 9/11? I'd say not.

    Further, I see no difference.

    The xenophobic stance this country has taken in recent years is a detriment to our society.
    (emphasis added / kw)

    thought out Congressional knee jerk reactions. That includes so-called air travel 'security' and the whole DHS imbroglio, the DNI bit, Visa restrictions and dozens of other things rapidly passed or instituted just so some can say they "did something."

    I'd grouse about the stupidity of the CAFE standards as well but I guess that would be threadjacking...

  5. #5
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    The truck that exploded near??? a pipeline has not be confirmed as any type of terrorist attack. It may turn out to be a very stupid driver who was carrying a legitimate load of construction explosives in a very unsafe manner.

    How ever MSNBC has reported that there were 6 confirmed terrorist/criminal attacks on Mexican gas pipelines yesterday,none involved trucks.
    link to Global Guerrillas for details.
    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/

    Forgot to add that letting trucks from both countries cross the border is more likely to increase security as opposed to decreasing it.
    Last edited by slapout9; 09-11-2007 at 02:19 AM. Reason: add item

  6. #6
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default I should have been clearer.

    In response to jedburgh:
    1) Probable is too strong a word. Big mistake on my part. I also did a terrible job writing this post. It does read a bit like that.
    Sorry, I saw it in my head, but it wasn't what I put on the paper.

    Still, I think you are reading a bit much into this. Take a look at it from my point of view. (see below)

    2) When I was referring to U.S. security I was hinting at our economic security (something we seem to no longer safeguard.) Having lived in Calgary, AB for a few years I became very familiar with the oil and natural gas industry. Mexico is absolutely key to our supply of both of these sources. Too many interests in Central America and the Gulf filter too us from Mexico.
    3) I am most concerned about certain weapons (guns, I am not a nutcase claiming they've got a nuke) making their way up from South America (its happened before.) This offensive on drug cartels may very well destabilize the country due to the power void that may very well open up.
    4) If we thought opium was flooding the market think about what this will do to cocaine. The cheaper merchandise gets the more dealers are going to fight over their share of the market.
    5) Truckers are not going to benefit from access to Mexico. Right now it is cheaper for companies to switch drivers at the border (it still will be after this.) Mexican drivers will drive for nada.
    6) People who are poor and desperate are more susceptible to being coerced into criminal activity. You can see this everyday especially with people coming into the U.S. The last thing we need is more truck drivers who are willing to risk smuggling cargo. Hey, for a lot of these guys a U.S. prison is an upgrade. This is why I am less worried about our other neighbor.
    7) I do think we need inspection at the Canadian border, they're a problem too.
    8) Think about what it's going to be like for big city cops the next few years.

    However, there are certainly plenty of isolationists, opponents of free-trade and globalization, and others with an axe to grind who will dredge up all kinds of potential threats and manufacture one nexus of crime and mayhem after another in an attempt to build up enough political influence to put a halt to the agreement. However, many of these yokels tend to forget, or overlook, that the agreement also includes Mexico permitting US truckers to cross into their country for the first time ever. They certainly overlook many Mexican's perceptions of this agreement as an economic threat to their own trucking industry, in that they may not be able to compete once the door has been opened.
    1) I am not an isolationist, but I do not believe in globalization and I only believe in free-trade in very special circumstances. All that globalization does is level the playing field and even out world economic layout a little. Labour rich countries (China, India) gain a lot and rich countries (the rich elite of those countries) exploit the foreign labour (which makes that foreign country richer in the end) and drain the lower classes of wealth (trade debt to China.) In the end ultra poor nations are still ultra poor. The only change is that China and India will be on or near par with the U.S. and the U.S. will literally be a paper tiger (paper only monetary value.) Globalization is killing off all that is left of this once industrial nation. I must admit that the rich elite are not the only conspirators. Most of us are either through indifference, ignorance or unwillingness to do something. Al Qaeda was stupid to attack us. We'll destroy ourselves soon enough.
    2) I do not view Mexico of "THE" nexus of crime, but it certainly is a hub (it ranks pretty high because of its location.)
    3) Any Mexican who thinks they are getting a raw deal doesn't know Jack *%#@ about anything. The only people who might lose money on this are some of the Mexico's elites.
    4) When did people forget that Mexico "IS" run by the Cartels (or some other form of organized crime.) As are a most impoverished countries.

    We do have plenty of border security issues - and not just with Mexico. The trucking program is not a "gross breach of our security"- in and of itself it will not have a significantly negative impact upon the current state of US border security. There are other issues on the border that are far greater vulnerabilities.
    Yes, there are bigger vulnerabilities on and away from the border. Still, this is simply opening up more and making it a lot easier.

    All I was saying about Iran, Syria and Venezuela is that all we are doing is making it so they do not have to attack us directly. Simply supporting our criminal element would most likely be more effective than any terrorist plot they could initiate. Perhaps they don't have the will or creativity to do so, but I know its sure as hell how I'd do it. The death of a 1000 paper cuts.

    Sorry about the length and the Soapbox.

  7. #7
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    The truck that exploded near??? a pipeline has not be confirmed as any type of terrorist attack. It may turn out to be a very stupid driver who was carrying a legitimate load of construction explosives in a very unsafe manner.

    How ever MSNBC has reported that there were 6 confirmed terrorist/criminal attacks on Mexican gas pipelines yesterday,none involved trucks.
    link to Global Guerrillas for details.
    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/

    Forgot to add that letting trucks from both countries cross the border is more likely to increase security as opposed to decreasing it.
    I just want to make clear that I wasn't suggesting the explosives truck was anything more than an accident. It probably was just a reckless driver with and undafe load.

    Hey, it's Mexico.

    BBC link on 6 bombings:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6987643.stm

    How is the trucking going to increase security? From the borders guys I've met who had worked down that way I got an impression that it's pretty poor at the borders.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Adam L
    I am sorry I am not going to try and go through all your points one by one as it would take a rather long time but

    1] You can't really have free trade in special circumstances this is a bit of an oxymoron. The powerful countries of the west have largely controlled the playing field since the days of the East India company and have done very nicely out of it. With over 1 billion of the worlds 6.6 billion living on 1$/day and nearly half on 2$/day I think we should cut the G20 / G33 countries a little slack. To do a weekly shop at Wal-Mart - without the benefits of globalisation - you would a) have very limited choice and b) need a truck load of money (pardon the pun).

    2] Re US security vis a vis central and south America I would try a having a little look at the history of several of these countries (pretty much pick one at random) and ask yourself which way the dangers of one nation destabilising another flow. Try Googling Noam Chomsky he may not be the US's favourite son but he is a serious academic and scrupulous about his facts as he knows his criticisms are going to be vigorously attacked.
    Last edited by JJackson; 09-11-2007 at 06:20 AM.

  9. #9
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default

    1) I shouldn't have said "special" it should have been "certain."
    2) We should give a lot of countries help. That includes China, India and Brazil, but with these three especially they have to be on favorable terms. I do not trust any of them not to destabilize our economy (intentionally or unintentionally.)
    3) Yes, many products would be a great deal more expensive. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Also, I avoid Walmarts at all costs. Sorry, I just don't approve of many of their business practice for economic as well as ethical reasons.
    4) I know Chomsky, I've read some of his boks. I find his work in linguistics impressive but his logic is failing in his other endevours. He fails to connect his points, let alone support them adequitely, into a concise and logical argument. He also desperately needs help with his statistical analasys (as many do these days.) He is not the polymath he believes himself to be. There are others of similar ideological and political views who have done a far better jobe at articulating their opinions. A lot of my books are packed at the present time (I'm slowly unpacking into a new place) and I can't recall the names of the authors. If you would like me to I can get back to you on that. Chomsky also lacks experience in the real world. The world is not quite so black and white. On many points I generally agree with him as would most reasonable men I know, but he lacks the ability to moderate the extremity of his arguments. My biggest complaint is that his cites are poorly done in a number of his books.

    On the other hand I would have to say that his attackers tend to be just as if not far more extreme in their views.

    You may look at certain of my opinions and view them as your everyday knee-jerk answers you get out of people, but that would be a great assumption. I am simplifying my opinions for the most part. Although they may not be trendy they do have solid roots and are in many ways are more traditional than knee-jerk.

    Adam

  10. #10
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    (emphasis added / kw)

    thought out Congressional knee jerk reactions. That includes so-called air travel 'security' and the whole DHS imbroglio, the DNI bit, Visa restrictions and dozens of other things rapidly passed or instituted just so some can say they "did something."

    I'd grouse about the stupidity of the CAFE standards as well but I guess that would be threadjacking...
    True.

    I don't mind threadjacking.

  11. #11
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    Let me ask you this; would it have been prudent for the FAA to ground airlines and flights in the United States originating in countries with Islamic alligience after 9/11? I'd say not.
    Further, I see no difference.
    [/quote]

    I don't believe that is a good analogy. That would have been impractical and ineffective. Terrorists could just as easily (and thats what they did) use domestic airlines. In the end there would be minimal security gains thorugh this action.

    To make this analogy work, a minimum of 1% of all passengers would have to be hijackers. In this extreme scenario maybe it would be the right thing to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    The xenophobic stance this country has taken in recent years is a detriment to our society.
    I agree we have been acting like xenophobes for years and depsite our foreign policy at this time our society as a whole is moving towards a post-WWI isolationist mentality. Since, 9/11 a lot of people have become terrified and very self centered. They want to withdraw and live in a sheltered little egg and they are willing to deny the existence of very real threats to get it.

    You've got one hell of a point.


    Adam.

  12. #12
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Originally Posted by RTK
    The xenophobic stance this country has taken in recent years is a detriment to our society.
    Agree with one major exception and that is stopping the flood of illegals entering the country. In that regard, we have been 180 degrees the other way and clouded the issue with political concerns that have no bearing on the issue. Taken in concert with your point RTK, it makes us look bipolar and stupid, never a good combination.

    Best

    Tom

  13. #13
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Agree with one major exception and that is stopping the flood of illegals entering the country. In that regard, we have been 180 degrees the other way and clouded the issue with political concerns that have no bearing on the issue. Taken in concert with your point RTK, it makes us look bipolar and stupid, never a good combination.

    Best

    Tom
    Good point, Tom !
    I recalled a story by a Texas Sheriff, so went a huntin'. Now, if this story is even remotely true, I would be concerned about heavy truck traffic too.

    Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez of Zapata County, Texas told Cybercast News Service

    that Iranian currency, military badges in Arabic, jackets and other clothing are among the items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande River. The sheriff also said there are a substantial number of individuals crossing the southern border into the U.S. who are not Mexican. He described the individuals in question as well-funded and able to pay so-called "coyotes" - human smugglers - large sums of money for help gaining illegal entry into the U.S.

    Although many of the non-Mexican illegal aliens are fluent in Spanish, Gonzalez said they speak with an accent that is not native.

    "It's clear these people are coming in for reasons other than employment," Gonzalez said.

    The chief law enforcement officers of several Texas counties along the southern U.S. border warn that Arabic-speaking individuals are learning Spanish and integrating into Mexican culture before paying smugglers to sneak them into the United States. The Texas Sheriffs' Border Coalition believes those individuals are likely terrorists and that drug cartels and some members of the Mexican military are helping them get across the border.

  14. #14
    Council Member Adam L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Agree with one major exception and that is stopping the flood of illegals entering the country. In that regard, we have been 180 degrees the other way and clouded the issue with political concerns that have no bearing on the issue. Taken in concert with your point RTK, it makes us look bipolar and stupid, never a good combination.

    Best

    Tom
    I don't think anyone can argue with that.

    We may be bipolar and stupid (as a group.) We are acting like isolationists (1920's style), while proceeding with globalism and letting a lot of illegals in. In the end its like we don't feel we have to protect our sovereignty any more. We're not bipolar, we're schizophrenic! LOL

    Adam
    Last edited by Adam L; 09-12-2007 at 01:27 AM.

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    I only know that it should be as easy to learn basic Spanish and cultural skills as it is to learn to fly jetliners. The only Iraqi refugee I've ever known told me shortly after making his acquaintance that he was getting tired of all the Mexicans coming up to him in stores and on the street speaking Spanish to him. The rest is speculation: if I were a senior AQ commander and if indeed the influx of unregulated Mexican trucks will be such a great boost to the US economy, then I would hurt the US economy by penetrating the porous southern border with a large truck bomb. It would be either detonated on the border if caught or it would reach its intended target at the simple cost of 2 martyrs, a couple of tons of nitrate, fuel and blasting caps, organizational logistical preparation costs via the drug cartels not included. Talk about stopping a large influx of Mexican trucks and a major PR/IO al qaidah coup.

    On a personal note, I don't want my great grandchildren's culture, future and immediate history and heritage defined only be economic parameters, which are the sole driving force behind the la-la notion that the world is really just one large commerical village and everyone has a loving role to play in it.

  16. #16
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default It's The People Not The Trucks

    I will tell you something I heard that is far more dangerous (this is unconfirmed) ME males were filing court documents to have their names changed......changed to Mexican names. This supposedly was discovered in Austin,Texas. Again I just heard this and I don't know if it is happening, If anybody knows or saw news reports about this I would appreciate any info on it.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9
    I will tell you something I heard that is far more dangerous (this is unconfirmed) ME males were filing court documents to have their names changed......changed to Mexican names. This supposedly was discovered in Austin,Texas. Again I just heard this and I don't know if it is happening, If anybody knows or saw news reports about this I would appreciate any info on it.
    I see a lot of (unclass) reporting from across the country every day. Although many are heavily focused on terrorism-related reporting, and in some the desperation to link even weakly connected info to terrorism comes through, there has been no substantiated reporting of this nature that I've seen. Regarding Austin in particular, there has been a steady increase in the gang problem in the city - but that's a different story.

    Regarding the Cybercast News Service, they ain't exactly known for their accuracy in reporting - more like reporting tweaked in order to support particular political positions. Their slant makes Fox News look like neutral, unbiased reporting.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 09-12-2007 at 03:36 PM.

  18. #18
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Thanks Jed.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    The Monitor, 13 Sep 07: South African immigrant linked to terror group
    A South African woman arrested in McAllen and deported three years ago had ties to a Pakistani terrorist group that smuggled foreign nationals across the border, the state’s top security official said.

    In a speech Wednesday before the North Texas Crime Commission in Dallas, Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw held up Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed as one of several terrorism suspects caught entering the United States through Mexico.

    McCraw’s remarks come three years after several federal agencies vehemently denied Ahmed’s purported connections to terrorism.....
    Again, regarding domestic discussion regarding the border and terrorists, their is tends to be fetid mix of political posturing with manipulation of reporting - much of it in a drive to get a bigger chunch of homeland security grant funding. And the reporting itself is often so full of assumption and conjecture that it lacks any real substance; recall the huge proportion of terror "suspects" that have had to be released later on lack of even the most tenuous evidence that they were truly linked to any terror organization.
    ....Black, the gubernatorial spokesman, stood by McCraw’s remarks about the case.

    “The governor has always said that the southern border is a prime entry point for potential terror suspects,” he said. “But when you talk about terrorism you have to question when you become a terrorist — before or after the crime.”....

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9
    I will tell you something I heard that is far more dangerous (this is unconfirmed) ME males were filing court documents to have their names changed......changed to Mexican names. This supposedly was discovered in Austin,Texas. Again I just heard this and I don't know if it is happening, If anybody knows or saw news reports about this I would appreciate any info on it.
    Hey, I've actually been seeing reporting along the lines of what you said here. It tends to be slight variations on ....individuals from countries with known al-Qa'ida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants...."

    However, the claims are never sourced, and the statements are always as vague as the example I've given above.

    Although the number of illegals coming across the southern border who are from countries other than Mexico has more than tripled in the past few years, most of'em are just from further south. Its certainly feeding the Hispanic gang problem, and our issues with DTO's, but it ain't al-Qa'ida. When pressed to give examples of "Middle Easterners" sneaking across, they tend to be limited to truly minor examples like the six Iraqis found in Brownsville, and the one Afghan guy caught trying to swim the Rio Grande at Hidalgo.

    Like much else to do with Homeland Security, this particular aspect appears to be exaggerated for effect.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •