UAE Management of US Ports (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off Topic Discussion



Message

Mercnbeth -> UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 11:24:35 AM)

After lurking a few days wondering when/if someone would open a discussion on the turning over of the US eastern ports over to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) I see it isn’t a topic worthy of discussion. Unlike wiretapping international calls, or Chaney’s hunting accident; there is nobody wondering if George Bush had a “few beers” prior to approving this transaction. The question became, why not? Hurricane Katrina was Bush’s fault, global warning is Bush’s fault, Howard Stern going to satellite radio was Bush’s fault; and here we have a situation where the management of 6 major ports is turned over to a state owned company with a history of at least tacit complicity to world terrorism. But in this case no one thinks it important to start a thread. Why? The reason is, the opposition really can’t.

Just for some background; the UAE was one of three countries along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission.

But...

If you are against “racial profiling” you can’t be against this transaction. The only reason to be against it is Arab ownership. Against this, by definition you are prejudice, right? It can’t be foreign ownership because previously management was owned by a British company. If Arab looking individuals are to be treated in the same manner as a 83 year old lady in a wheelchair getting on an airplane you should be in support of this transaction. Civil libertarians unite! Where are the banners and parades crediting the President for his conversion to their side? Blind justice prevailed! Can I get a group sing-a-long of “Kum Ba Ya”?

But...

If you are of the opinion that one of the major reasons we are at war in Iraq is a Christian prejudice against any Muslim country or regime; this transaction discounts that position. We are making “Muslims” partners in a transaction NOT involving oil. It’s a good transition to “normal” commerce. Anyone fighting for “equality” and fairness in dealing with the Muslim world should be out on the streets in support of the President.

US security? What of it? Less than 5% of the containers entering into US ports are currently inspected. You say; “But by sheer volume it’s impossible to inspect more!” Consider in the port of Hong Kong 100% of all containers entering and leaving are inspected. They use the capitalistic approach where if you want to ship something illegal you have to pay off the security and management of the port.

Perhaps people are more afraid of being shot by Chaney. I assume that more people are making international calls to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan than live close enough to a port to be concerned. Okay – I can live with that. I’m sure no subversive cartoons depicting Muhammad will enter the port. Of course subjected to the same laws that exist in the UAE, there will be no woman drivers, car or truck allowed. Woman will also be unable to wear jewelry, make-up and not allowed to make noise with their shoes when they walk. Men will be required to wear a beard long enough to protrude from a fist clenched at the base of the chin.

As for me, I share the position of Hillary Clinton – Bush has lost his mind!



pollux -> RE: UAE Managment of US Ports (2/22/2006 11:31:28 AM)

I don't think he's lost his mind, although it's clear he miscalculated the political cost of this. I think it's more likely that at some point there was a quid pro quo with the UAE government, and now Bush is having to pay the piper. I'm imagining something like this:

Emir of UAE: "Of course we'll allow your NSA people to install a sensitive listening post up in that mountainous area where AQ is known to hide out. Now, about that Dubai Ports World deal....I see you're a man we can do business with..."



pollux -> RE: UAE Managment of US Ports (2/22/2006 11:35:16 AM)

Besides Merc, what are you saying, we should let Halliburton do it?

[;)]



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 11:42:20 AM)

quote:

what are you saying, we should let Halliburton do it?


lol - sure why not? I'll take pragmatic capitalism to religious fanaticism any day.

Starting to consider the "Illuminate" is real.



incognitoinmass -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 12:47:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

what are you saying, we should let Halliburton do it?


lol - sure why not? I'll take pragmatic capitalism to religious fanaticism any day.

Starting to consider the "Illuminate" is real.



Well, conspiracy afficianados are prone to believe about anything, aren't they? That's the nature of their affliction.

As I understand it, this is more of a merger/acquisition deal than anything else. The company currently running the ports sold the division to a company headquartered in Dubai. Neither the old ownership or the new ownership were or will be responsible for port security. That job still falls to the Coast Guard and US Customs. So, unless we have some concern that the Teamsters is about to get a rash of new members named Muhammed I am not sure what all the fuss is.

And of course, I believe I also read that Halliburton is actually one of the few if not the only 'American' company that still does this type of work.

And can you imagine the screeching that would have generated?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999





Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 1:05:49 PM)

quote:

Neither the old ownership or the new ownership were or will be responsible for port security. That job still falls to the Coast Guard and US Customs. So, unless we have some concern that the Teamsters is about to get a rash of new members named Muhammed I am not sure what all the fuss is.


incognito,
When I was an employee of a bank who financed imports I sometimes had to visit the ports to verify the contents of containers before releasing funds to the shipper. Port managers are responsible for the inventory. Somehow if there was "shrinkage" (aka - stolen shipments) the managers were able to trace back through hand written portage documents. Often they would find the missing goods even when they were "misplaced" in a neighboring container, or had a number error.

It's control of these documents that concerns me. There are millions of containers in these shipyards. Even if the Coast Guard or US Customs knew the box number of a container with materials which could cause a terrorist event, by the time they found it, it could be too late. Documents could be lost or changed throwing off security.

Could it happen under the British company's management - sure. But to date, no terrorist attack originated or worked through the British government. If the same could be said of UAE - no problem. Drug addicts aren't hired in the shipping department of drug companies. Convicted bank robbers can't get a job as a teller in bank. Access is power.

Are you less or more secure with the ports under UAE management?



incognitoinmass -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 1:38:44 PM)

Until I see something to make me think otherwise this is a security neutral event. It is neither better nor worse. It is a paper transaction. The UAE has been a strong ally in the war on terror and in the mideast in general. It would be a slap in the face to reject this deal because the new members of the board have the wrong ethnicity.

Of course, as Jimmy Carter has stated that he is favor of the deal I may have to reconsider it's wisdom.



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 2:01:36 PM)

quote:

Jimmy Carter has stated that he is favor of the deal I may have to reconsider it's wisdom.


How scary is that!

Maybe "creeping globalization" is moving toward crawling globalization, soon to be running globalization. When the Japanese purchased much of Manhattan, including Rockefeller Center, there was also an outcry, but no collapse of western economy ensued.

I would normally take the position that in 2006, money is the modern version of the "MAD" game the US used to play with the Russians. It's one of the reasons I don't lose sleep over the growing power of China. If they attached the US who would buy their products at Walmart? But my concern is that members of the royal family running UAE share the same beliefs as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That man is looking forward to Armageddon and is on record as hoping to initiate it. I believe this because the UAE was part of the deafening silence, and lack of outrage from the Arab nations and the Muslim community in general, over the comments of Ahmadinejad. Allowing this type of access, to me, is not responsible.

But since no one else seems to mind, I'll curtail further commentary. Thank you for your opinion.



UtopianRanger -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 3:02:43 PM)

quote:

After lurking a few days wondering when/if someone would open a discussion on the turning over of the US eastern ports over to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) I see it isn’t a topic worthy of discussion.


Actually, I was thinking the very same thing. I've spent very little time on the board since Sunday or I would have seriously considered asking others what they think -- I'm glad you took the initiative though...
quote:


If you are against “racial profiling” you can’t be against this transaction. The only reason to be against it is Arab ownership. Against this, by definition you are prejudice, right? It can’t be foreign ownership because previously management was owned by a British company. If Arab looking individuals are to be treated in the same manner as a 83 year old lady in a wheelchair getting on an airplane you should be in support of this transaction.


False argument. Personally... I find that argument about as insidious as Ward Churchill's argument which said : If you don't believe the official version of the Bush/ Kane-Hamilton commission 9-11 report, you're a racist. You're racist, because what you're really arguing is that Arabs are inferior beings, who are not talented enough to do such a complicated thing - You might as well believe in Santa Claus and Frosty the Snow Man if you are gullible enough to be conned in that manner.

What's true is that {Reported by Lars Larson last night} something in the order of eighty-five percent of the voting population had no idea whatsoever that key US shipping ports were being managed/overseen by foreign entities, let alone ones with terrorist connections - The public doesn't want national security interests managed by foreign entities -- I challenge anyone to dispute that.

quote:

We are making “Muslims” partners in a transaction NOT involving oil. It’s a good transition to “normal” commerce. Anyone fighting for “equality” and fairness in dealing with the Muslim world should be out on the streets in support of the President.


Another false argument brought forth by administration cronies to protect their position and save face.

Clearly, we can find other ways of showing equality and good faith towards our friends/confidants in the Muslim world without outsourcing management of key US ports that are vital to our national security.

quote:

US security? What of it? Less than 5% of the containers entering into US ports are currently inspected. You say; “But by sheer volume it’s impossible to inspect more!” Consider in the port of Hong Kong 100% of all containers entering and leaving are inspected. They use the capitalistic approach where if you want to ship something illegal you have to pay off the security and management of the port.


By smuggling in shoulder fired missiles {similar to the stinger} into our country via the ports, the PLA has already proven that this situation is a vital threat to our national security. My prediction is that something ‘‘bad’’, an incident of sorts, will have to happen before the hammer is dropped.


quote:

As for me, I share the position of Hillary Clinton – Bush has lost his mind!


Didn't hear Hilliary's position..... But Bush has made grave errors in trying to defend his position – Hopefully the neocons will pay dearly.





- The Ranger




Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 3:51:50 PM)

Ranger,
Thanks for contributing to the thread.

All the spin doctoring going on is ridiculous. I don't think even they believe the rationalizations I pointed out in the original post. It made my head hurt thinking that this may be just a baiting tactic by the current administration. Consider, that now they have on record, every potential Democratic candidate for 2008 against this acquisition. During the campaign will we be hearing how the Democrats are not willing to work with our "Arab Allies" pointing to this situation? To the masses this is confusing as hell.

The problem with Bush defending his position is that he may really believe that the UAE should be treated as any other foreign government. The reality is, they aren't. I agree that most didn't realize that the management of these ports was in foreign hands prior to this transaction; but would you have the same sentiments if it was sold to a Russian based corporation? I don't know if the transaction would have made the "above the fold" cut of priority in the New York Time or WSJ.

I fudged a bit on crediting Hilliary with that quote, she just agreed with it. It was a fellow New York politico but I couldn't remember exactly which one. Besides I thought it would make a bigger impact if I documented agreeing with her in this instance.

Bush may have made a pragmatic decision to support a deal that was already done, but WOW - didn't he learn anything from his support of Harriet Miers? I've been waiting for the "hammer to drop" for a few years. My biggest fear of that occurrence isn't dying from it, it's living in the country that survives it. The past The 4 plus years proves to me that no party or person is prepared to deal appropriately with the purveyors of evil and terror. In the vacuum of power, a modern day Hitler will be considered a savior to the masses.

Then the neocons, along with the liberals, conservatives, libertarians, paleiocons, paleo-libertarians, and the third-wayers; will be paying in ways that can't be imagined today.



Lordandmaster -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 4:28:36 PM)

This is all just privatization coming home to roost. The nation's ports should be supervised by a national security bureau--that's the way it's done in most sane nations. But no, we have to sell things these off to the highest bidder so that we can lower federal income taxes for the top 1% of the population. Now the highest bidder is a UAE company that acquired the other foreign company we were doing business with, and no one wants to accept it because we don't want A-rabs monitoring our ports. A tempest in a teacup.



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 4:40:58 PM)

The ports have been and are supervised by a national security bureau, the Coast Guard.

How does this relate to the tax code? The sale has zero consideration to federal income taxes. Neither party was an US individual, buyer or seller.

quote:

A tempest in a teacup.

I'd have to agree based on how this thread compares to Chaney's shooting skills, or wiretapping. But it seems the senate and congress, and the press don't agree with you.



UtopianRanger -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 4:43:44 PM)

Merc...

First let me say that I like the way you put ''bait arguments'' out there to get people to think. However, I sometimes wonder if others misinterpret the ''bait'' as actually being your position. Probably not…. Your conclusion gets them to read between the lines[;)]

quote:


The problem with Bush defending his position is that he may really believe that the UAE should be treated as any other foreign government.



I actually think that it's more a case of the whole repertoire of Bush's cronies, including his farther, holding very close ties to friendly petroleum producing nations/governments - More of a case where ''you scratch my back I'll scratch yours''. At least that’s my opinion. And I did not develop it by listening to Michael Moore.

I also think it ties in with the whole globalist belief system centering on ''free trade'' {a oxymoron if I ever saw one}.

quote:

The reality is, they aren't. I agree that most didn't realize that the management of these ports was in foreign hands prior to this transaction; but would you have the same sentiments if it was sold to a Russian based corporation?


Eventhough Bush said he ''peered'' into Putin's soul and could trust him {Remember that?} I find it ironic that our government would trust an Islamic monarchy over a more democratic form of government when doing business. I say that because I think Monarchies and totalitarian regimes are somewhat volatile these days and know that a ''friend'' could be replaced with a ''foe'' very fast. I keep wondering when we'll see the violent overthrow of the ''House of Saud.''

quote:


Bush may have made a pragmatic decision to support a deal that was already done, but WOW - didn't he learn anything from his support of Harriet Miers? I've been waiting for the "hammer to drop" for a few years. My biggest fear of that occurrence isn't dying from it, it's living in the country that survives it. The past The 4 plus years proves to me that no party or person is prepared to deal appropriately with the purveyors of evil and terror. In the vacuum of power, a modern day Hitler will be considered a savior to the masses.


Great point.... not to mention, he is facing a ''mutiny'' by his own party. I watched Lindsey Graham just hammer this decision last Sunday on Chris Mathew's show. I'm really blown away that he's trying hold on here.




- The Ranger



Mercnbeth -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 5:05:27 PM)

Being a "news junkie" I was anxious to see the reaction from the other side of the issue. I found this article interesting:

quote:

By Miral Fahmy and Ghaida Ghantous
DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers' strident opposition to a Dubai company controlling major seaports reflects a Western phobia of Arabs which could scare off other Middle East investors, Arab analysts said.

"This is Arab phobia and it is clearly politically motivated," he told Reuters. Analysts also said the uproar could scare off other Gulf Arab states, all U.S. allies and flush with petrodollars, from seeking similar high-profile investments.

"Other Gulf Arabs are watching this closely... this could definitely scare money away. Any investor is going to think a thousand times before doing so," a Gulf-based analyst said.


Entire Article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-02-22T181114Z_01_L22174752_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-ARABS.xml&rpc=22

(If someone who knows can send me the instructions on making that long link one word - please send me the instructions on the other side - THANKS!)



Lordandmaster -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/22/2006 11:34:27 PM)

If that were all there is to it, there wouldn't have been a sale, because there wouldn't have been a foreign company to be taken over in the first place. All the duties to be handled by this Dubai company would have been handled by the Coast Guard directly.

We don't do things this way because it would mean more government expenditures, which translate into higher federal income taxes. People don't want that. Even though most ordinary Americans pay much more in real estate taxes, school taxes, and so on (if not directly, then indirectly, through rent) than in income taxes, we have been bamboozled into believing that lowering federal income taxes is the only thing that matters. That's why security at airports is in private hands. Same reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The ports have been and are supervised by a national security bureau, the Coast Guard.

How does this relate to the tax code? The sale has zero consideration to federal income taxes. Neither party was an US individual, buyer or seller.




seaturtle50 -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 12:03:15 AM)

quote:

My prediction is that something ‘‘bad’’, an incident of sorts, will have to happen before the hammer is dropped.


9-11 was enough of an event for me. For that matter - the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center was enough of a " bad incident" for me. That got all of my attention.

The hammer has dropped - why is so much of the country willing to wait for the next "bad incident?" If it turns out to be nuclear - will that finally be enough, so that we can unite as one?

Damn, Ma'am. i am in it now!

st50



Lordandmaster -> RE: UAE Managment of US Ports (2/23/2006 12:14:23 AM)

Exactly right:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=KLIF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

I don't think he's lost his mind, although it's clear he miscalculated the political cost of this. I think it's more likely that at some point there was a quid pro quo with the UAE government, and now Bush is having to pay the piper. I'm imagining something like this:

Emir of UAE: "Of course we'll allow your NSA people to install a sensitive listening post up in that mountainous area where AQ is known to hide out. Now, about that Dubai Ports World deal....I see you're a man we can do business with..."




MstrssPassion -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 4:14:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seaturtle50

quote:

My prediction is that something ‘‘bad’’, an incident of sorts, will have to happen before the hammer is dropped.


9-11 was enough of an event for me. For that matter - the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center was enough of a " bad incident" for me. That got all of my attention.

The hammer has dropped - why is so much of the country willing to wait for the next "bad incident?" If it turns out to be nuclear - will that finally be enough, so that we can unite as one?

Damn, Ma'am. i am in it now!

st50


I sure hope you are a lousy psychic. I am not too far away from two of these ports. I'm not prepared to take one for the team in regards to nuclear attack.

I have been following this story pretty close & even attempted to open a discussion about it on another site. The response was sad. I have often pondered, why America WHY do you let these people stay in power, why don't you speak out about things that you don't agree with, why don't you get involved... the response I got from most I spoke with on this matter was that "don't listen to the media, they are just stirring up trouble" <slapping hand to forehead>




UtopianRanger -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 6:55:35 AM)

quote:


We don't do things this way because it would mean more government expenditures, which translate into higher federal income taxes. People don't want that. Even though most ordinary Americans pay much more in real estate taxes, school taxes, and so on (if not directly, then indirectly, through rent) than in income taxes, we have been bamboozled into believing that lowering federal income taxes is the only thing that matters. That's why security at airports is in private hands. Same reason.


Lam...

You are one of the people I was talking about in another thread, who's logic I am frequently onboard with. However, this is one of the rare occurrences in which I completely disagree with you.

The situation at hand has nothing to do taxes and the one percent {who pay most of the taxes[;)]} and everything to do with secret deals, etc. --- It's cronyism my friend

The treasury secretary, John Snow, has already been tied to both the secret decision making process and prior ties to the state owned UAE Company through a company that he was principal owner in before he signed on with the administration.

You watch.... in the coming days you will see stuff come out of the woodwork that ties all loose ends together vis a vis Bush/Cheney cronyism.

Besides... Under Bush we've racked more debt and operated in the red like never before.... And they’re still passing out tax breaks. Bush has spent more money than the last seven presidents combined. So saying that he cares about curbing government expenditures via free reign on ports, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.


If I was Bush, I’d be thinking about damage control instead of the word VETO HAR!



JMHO


- The Ranger



Lordandmaster -> RE: UAE Management of US Ports (2/23/2006 8:01:36 AM)

It's both. Cronyism is a contributing cause, and privatization is a contributing cause. There wouldn't be an issue in the first place if we hadn't privatized ourselves to death.

Take a look at the article on defense software in the current issue of Scientific American (March 2006). It's almost exactly the same problem. In the past, the Department of Defense used to handle all its own coding; but lately, they've franchised this stuff out, and the contractors they've been using have in turn sub-franchised the coding to even shadier offshore companies. Now the DoD is terrified that their most sensitive software is easily compromised. Don't you think the right solution would have been not to contract out software encoding in the first place? But no, we don't do that anymore; we want a leaner, meaner Department of Defense.

The fucked-up invasion of Iraq, the fucked-up post-victory occupation of Iraq, the woeful state of airport security, the UAE ports deal--they all have one fundamental cause. Privatization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

You are one of the people I was talking about in another thread, who's logic I am frequently onboard with. However, this is one of the rare occurrences in which I completely disagree with you.

The situation at hand has nothing to do taxes and the one percent {who pay most of the taxes[;)]} and everything to do with secret deals, etc. --- It's cronyism my friend




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02