View Single Post
  #7  
Old 12-04-2003, 03:22 AM
taranaki's Avatar
taranaki taranaki is offline
Banned
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 16,048
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: The forgotten Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pick
"Although the fleet may look the part, according to a recent US government audit, more than 70 will never return to active duty no matter how pressing the emergency. They are without hope and, according to appalled environmentalists, they represent a disaster just waiting to happen."

Actually, the article's purpose is lost when it assumes the cause of "appalled environmentalists."

I think the ships should be sold to the highest bidder and should be taken care of with caution, but with a quick efficiency. They serve no purpose sitting there. If Bush overturned the ban to get them out of that river, good. If the English want them, more power to them. It doesn't appear as if they are turned over forcibly by the Americans.
The whole thrust of the article is about environmental cocerns,so how can the purpose be lost?

Prior to the Clinton administration ban on such practices,this kind of scrap was disposed of exactly as you proposed.As a result,the ships often ended up being cut up in third world countries with no regard to the resulting polution or the health and safety of the workforce.It was ethical and responsible of the Clinton administration to embargo the practice.

Now that the U.S.is under the control of an unprincipled government,these ships are being swept under the mat.Two late model uncompleted tankers are being offered to an American private enterprise as a sweetener to rid the government of its problem.Other American companies who would rather see the jobs and the money generated by this exercise stay within the U.S. have been excluded from the process.

You are correct in asserting that they serve no purpose.I'd say that they are an ecological tragedy waiting to happen,but already,at least one of the vessels has caused serious pollution of the river.

They should be dealt with swiftly and ethically.If it costs a little extra to complete the task with less risk of sinking or further pollutrion,it is a price that the government should pay.However,given George Bush's track record on environmental issues,it seems highly unlikely that that would ever happen.
Reply With Quote