Are You For or Against the Dubai Port World Deal?

[norml]

For or Against?

[Twist_U_Up]

1. I voted for it

Just want to see what it feels like to be as dumb as the shrub

[LearnedHand]

3. ROTFL

I don't know why, but your post totally cracked me up. Guess I was expecting a defensive, somewhat sputtering support of the deal, or something. :rofl:

[Clarkie1]

26. How did it feel? n/t

[Crazy Guggenheim]

2. I am so against this! It's all about national security. For one thing

it smells too much of money - the biggest security threat of all.

:popcorn:

[barb162]

ME TOO!

:hi:

[DemInDistress]

4. a no brainer...course not unless you want a nuke to slip past

the lax security. Btw, wasn't there a movie wiith ben alleck and morgan ??? where a nuke was detonated in Baltimore?

[kayice]

12. Yes, it was on network tv last week. nt

[baldguy]

5. There's no American company that can handle managing a major port?

bullshit

[Djinn]

6. need another option

for "no more than I approve or disapprove of the UK company that has been running it up till now"

[norml]

8. No other option,

You're either for it or against it.

[Djinn]

11. well that's a familiar refrain

[norml]

25. Thanks, I meant it to be.

The question of who should run the ports would be another poll.

This one is just a thumbs up, or a thumbs down on the proposition of Dubai running the ports.

[Clarkie1]

27. The U.K. is a member of NATO.

Enough said.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. That's a particularly feeble excuse...

Enough said...

Violet...

[mondo joe]

99. Why? Are you suggesting there is NO difference between any nations?

[misternormal]

7. I am against it...

It's all about the $$$$$$$$

They don't care if the U.S. Gets blown to smithereens... They have their little islands in the sun on which the can roll around in their loot.

[shanti]

54. and their bunkers

:eyes:

[noblecooley]

9. Is W dumb or is Congress???

The opposition to this issue screams of racial profiling. Stopping this deal does nothing more than piss off US opposition even more by making it more clear that we are anti-Arab. This isn't an anti-W issue, it's an issue of common sense. The company that is taking over port management has nothing more to do with terrorism, or even more importantly port security, than the British company who currently runs management of these ports. This is not an issue of port security. Our own country manages port security, not the management company who runs port operations.

If Democrats were wise, they'd shut up and watch W and the Republicans fight tooth and nail over this and further divide their party. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is neither united enough, nor smart enough, to see the advantage that they could gain by staying out of this argument.

The argument behind stopping this is that two UAE citizens were part of 911, and banks in the UAE are used to hold funds for Al Quaeda. Well... many of the participants in the London bus bombings were British citizens, yet our ports have been run for years by a British company. Many members of Al Quaeda are citizens of countries around the world, including the US. And, money for Al Quaeda is held in banks around the world, much of it right here in the US.

Port security, or a lack thereof, has been an issue in the US for a long time, but until today when the news broke that an Arab company was going to take over port management, it wasn't an issue that the Democrats or Republicans cared very much about. How do you think that looks internationally?

The answer to port security is a greater focus on port security, not who manages port operations. This whole story is a big facade that politicians are clinging to as if to make it appear that port security is a concern to them. If port operations were really such a concern to national security then why the hell does a foreign entity - British, Canadian, or Arab - have the opportunity to run our ports at all?

Do you still wonder what it feels like to be as stupid as the Shrub? I think the question should be "what does it feel like to be as stupid, internationally narrow-minded, and ignorant to National Security as our own congress members - Democrat and Republican?"

[Crazy Guggenheim]

10. Welcome to DU.

:popcorn:

[noblecooley]

23. Thanks for the welcome

I should add that I'm neither for against this deal. Right now, I think there's too little information out there to make a decision. Unfortunately, I think our politicians have made a rash decision to oppose the deal based on one fact - this managing company is a state-owned UAE company - which is clearly racial profiling. Way to go guys! Our opposition has another reason to burn the flag tomorrow morning!

[norml]

29. That's what the Bush Bots trying to sell this garbage are saying

that it's all about race, and not about the record of the country involved.

It's laughable, and so I laugh at it.

Ha!

[noblecooley]

31. And it could be argued

That the Anti-Bush Bots are so quick to oppose anything he supports that they are blinded - incapable of forming a rational opinion based on the facts that are available at the time. Look, I don't support or oppose this deal yet, but the opposition is energeticly basing their argument solely on pretty flimsy arguments that pretty much come back to one thing - the company is a state run UAE company.

[Skittles]

35. the idea this is about race is absolutely ridiculous

stop repeating RNC propaganda

[noblecooley]

40. That's pretty funny

I don't spew anyone's propoganda. I make my own decisions.

Something tells me if the President was against this deal, the Dems would be all over the race issue. If this was an Australian company that took over this deal, would this be the #1 story on every news show and in every paper in the US? No, 99.9% of the country would have no idea it happened.

It's not RNC propoganda. Hell, the majority of them are against this deal, too, for one reason - it's an Arab company getting the contract. This company is a major player in the international shipping market, and US opposition to the deal has everything to do with an Arab company taking over operations.

[Skittles]

41. comparing UAE to Australia is RIDICULOUS

you are not fooling anyone

[noblecooley]

43. Great point

You've convinced me with your compelling argument. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Skittles]

57. there is nothing to argue about

you are dead wrong on this issue

[noblecooley]

62. Another convincing argument

Thanks again for sharing your views.

[Skittles]

82. read

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.thomas22feb22,0,3415014.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

[noblecooley]

87. I read it

and it states the same points that have been argued all day on every news channel and website. It still doesn't change the fact that this company runs many ports around the world, successfully, and they have nothing to do with port security. And it doesn't sound like there are many companies in the world who deal with port management.

I still think that the people who oppose this deal oppose it for one reason - Arabs.

[Skittles]

90. well, you are wrong

I don't oppose them because they are ARABS

[noblecooley]

93. You haven't said anything

Other than I'm wrong. If you don't oppose this because it's an Arab company getting the deal, then why do you? Jesus, it's taken two hours to get this far!

[Skittles]

94. just them recognizing the Taliban as legitimate is enough for me

[stickdog]

73. Dead giveaway.

Something tells me if the President was against this deal, the Dems would be all over the race issue.

What tells you this? Your Rush Dimbulb decoder ring?

[noblecooley]

77. Another great argument

Keep them coming! By the way, I'm not a Republican and don't support about 99% of what this administration has done. This is one issue where I think more is being made of it than needs to be. We needed to look at port security long ago, but we haven't. The UAE enters into the equation and suddenly every political figure is concerned about port security? Bullshit.

[stickdog]

89. Another bullshit deflection.

We needed to look at port security long ago, but we haven't.

Sure we have. Dean said this. Kerry said this. Edwards said this. Graham said this.

The UAE enters into the equation and suddenly every political figure is concerned about port security?

Suddenly, Repukes care too. Because if they don't, they risk alienating their xenophobic base.

[noblecooley]

91. And you deflect back

People have talked about port security for a long time, but no one on either side has done anything real about it. The management company doesn't control the security of the ports. And if anything, the UAE will be more concerned about keeping their nose clean in this deal or risk losing a ton of money and getting their asses bombed in the process. The worries about this deal are completely unfounded.

[stickdog]

96. The Repukes control all three branches of government plus the media.

How do you suggest the Dems -- who have constantly beaten the drums on the issue of port security for the last three years at least -- do "anything real about it"?

Your argument about the UAE "keeping their nose clean in this deal or risk losing a ton of money and getting their asses bombed in the process" could be used to justify outsourcing our intelligence agencies to Israel, our airport security to Pakistan, our nuke plant security to North Korea, our border security to Mexico and our nuke missile security to China.

In other words, you are off your fucking rocker.

[Twist_U_Up]

97. How the Hell ???

Have the Dems been able to accomplish anything since the shrub stole the elections NO

Have the Dems made attempts to approach this Ports topic? Yes

What happens when they asked for more funding ?

These slimey bastards turn around and cut funding.

I say bullshit these guys want this deal and they tried to sneak it through like everything else they couldn't get support for.

If you cant see this then you've probably spent toooo much time over at that OTHER site.

[shanti]

56. ok

:thumbsup:

[kysrsoze]

68. You're so uneducated. Think about...

the fact that this government has been tied to terrorist operations and only recently broke ties with the Taliban. This means there are RADICAL Muslims, not your typical Muslim, serving in their government. I have friends who are Middle Eastern and East Asian Muslims. I make no connection between such good people and those who hijack a religion to further their own misguided means. The same thing happens in the Christian religion.

You need to check your facts and think about the six people who apparently approved this deal, including Condi Rice, Michael Chertoff, John Snow, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales (a real lying mother fucker, particularly on his un-sworn testimony to Congress about the illegal domestic spying incident). John Snow has huge ties to a company which formerly was sold to this UAE company. Obviously there was an impending profit for all involved.

You can stop trying to convince us we're all crazy. We just don't look the other way.

[noblecooley]

76. Ah, I'm Uneducated!

Thanks for the insight! I need to tell the US Government that I'm not going to pay my student loans anymore because kysroze on DU informed me that I'm uneducated. A great opening argument I might add!

So your muslim friends aren't extremists, which would make sense. Why would you be friends with Muslim extremists?

But what doesn't make sense is that you would form opinions about an entire group of people you don't know at all based on prejudices. The UAE government formed ties with a government that was formed around extremist views (probably not knowing to what extreme that they would go), and this is true. They then broke ties with them right after they found out how extreme they were because they didn't support those views, and they cherished their connections with the civilized world. So logically, they must be filled with a bunch of religious extremists. That makes perfect sense.

I really hope that you don't speak for the majority on this site when it comes to those views.

Now, as for the claims of the six people involved, I don't know how true that is. My guess is that there were more people involved than that. And it's not a surprise that someone involved had business ties with them. They're a huge entity in international shipping. And truthfully, the financial gains for the US and indirectly a few US political figures involved probably stretches further than what was stated. I don't think there was a profit involved for "all involved". That's probably a gross exageration. But the fact that government officials have ties is no shock to me, and it shouldn't be to you either. People get elected because they have money, and they got that money through business dealings at a very high level, as you don't get rich dealing in business at a low level. Business and Politics run hand-in-hand, and both involve the game of back scratching. Welcome to the worlds of business and politics.

[norml]

84. I wouldn't say you're uneducated

I'd say you're obvious.

It has been determined by the lords of the right wing media whores to play the race card on this one and pretend that any objection to Dubai running our ports is based on that.

Go tell Karl we spit this absurdity back in his face.

[noblecooley]

86. ???

"Right Wing Media Whores" don't control my views. From the moment that I read this story reported by the AP, plainly without any spin, I thought that the opposition to the deal screamed of racial profiling and unwarranted paranoia. And I usually side on the liberal side of issues. But thanks.

[Twist_U_Up]

98. Theres a mistake right there

"AP, plainly without any spin"

if you beleive this quote

I'd like to sell you a port or 2 myself.

[radwriter0555]

83. You're right, too little info. Besides, the UAE didn't attack us. PNAC was

the hiring factor behind 911.

How would the UAE be a threat to national security? It's not like they're trying to take over the USA.

I'm more concerned with the profiteering aspect of the situation, as opposed to some imaginary terrorist threat.

This whole thing smells of a red herring to me. And all I see is people running around in circles waving their arms without any genuine reasons to be concerned.

Other than the wholesale and very valid "what's in it for the bush regime cronies and who are they exploiting now" now factor, my first concern, which I haven't looked into, is the unions.

[BoneDaddy]

105. Racial profiling????

I would like to consider it nation profiling and it would be very fucking appropriate. I would feel the same way about any other potentially dangerous nation state.

So sick of the racial profiling bullshit on this issue.

[Djinn]

15. nice first post

This is not an issue of port security. Our own country manages port security, not the management company who runs port operations.

I think much of the hysteria is based on people not having a clue what DP World would actually be in charge of

If Democrats were wise, they'd shut up and watch W and the Republicans fight tooth and nail over this and further divide their party. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is neither united enough, nor smart enough, to see the advantage that they could gain by staying out of this argument.

can only say "FUCKIN' A" to that, instead they jump on board the "arab boogeymen" crap as quick as any redneck conservative

The argument behind stopping this is that two UAE citizens were part of 911, and banks in the UAE are used to hold funds for Al Quaeda. Well... many of the participants in the London bus bombings were British citizens, yet our ports have been run for years by a British company. Many members of Al Quaeda are citizens of countries around the world, including the US. And, money for Al Quaeda is held in banks around the world.

not to mention that those running airline security prior to 9/11 weren't from UAE, but yet strangely enough they weren't bowled over with concer for US citizens' safety and lives, they're in it to make money, end of story

[norml]

17. Has nothing to do with racial profiling.

That's a very shallow and false way of looking at this.

I and I hope most people here are more concerned with speaking the truth than with how we're perceived as positioning ourselves for some popularity contest.

Better to go forward with the truth and be judged by that than to speak weasel words over worries about being perceived falsely.

We're not nearly so fearful of being perceived as un-PC as many on Fwee Wepubwic would like to believe.

In fact they look pretty over concerned with being politically correct, according to their ideology, to us.

[MADem]

20. It has everything to do with THREE THINGS

First, two clowns in the administration who were instrumental in approving this transfer have direct ties to DP. Who knows how many others have nudge, wink, blind trust stock portfolios that will be enriched by this action?

Second, the UAE has been a strong supporter of the goddamn TALIBAN--not just moral support, but cold hard CASH.

And. third, let's not forget that two of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE. Their population does not have a great love for us, to put it mildly.

[noblecooley]

28. Ok

Your arguments just described just about every international deal that takes place. Government officials are elected because they have money. They obtained that money through personal or family business dealings. The fact that an official in the US government has personal dealings with this company is no surprise - they are a very wealthy entity in international shipping.

None of that means that this company presents more or less of a threat to our own security. The only reason that this is a story is that the company is a state-owned UAE company. If a German or Australian company took over this operation, the story would have been reported on the 20th page of the WSJ and 99.9% of the country would have no idea it ever happened. Thus, racial profiling is at the center of this issue no matter how you look at it.

And the fact that the UAE population doesn't have a lot of love for us is pretty insignificant. That pretty much describes the entire world.

[MADem]

34. Would we let the CHINESE government run our ports?

How about the Russian government?? The government, mind you, not a private company.

This is a GOVERNMENT that has not been on the same page as us in terms of national security. While we were fighting in Afghanistan, they were funding the Taliban. Their present ruler has ties to Old Sammy Bin Hidin'...these people are NOT OUR FRIENDS.

Most international deals that take place here in the US are not contracts with foreign GOVERNMENTS to run private enterprises that have direct national security associations. Especially not with governments that do not have a track record that suggests that they are friendly to us. It's like asking the fox to watch the henhouse, and paying them handsomely for the privilege.

Call it racial profiling if you happen to feel that way; I call it NATIONAL SECURITY profiling, with good cause. Or basic, simple common sense. Just because an agency happens to be Arab doesn't mean they get a pass, any more than they should be excessively scruitinized. If it walks like a duck, foments terrorism against our nation, and funds our enemies, it's a duck--about the only goddamn waterfowl that Dick Cheney seems unwilling to shoot.

And the connection to Treasury Sec Snow and brand-new Bush appointee David Sanborn--who is STILL WORKING FOR THE UAE GOVT AT DP, FWIW--he hasn't even REPORTED to his goddamn job as head of the US MARITIME Administration, stinks to high heaven. The whole deal is bullshit, and that's only scratching the surface.

[noblecooley]

42. They broke off ties right after 911

The UAE broke off ties with the Taliban long ago, right after 911, and they've been an ally (lose term I know) for a long time. We used to support Saddam's government in the past, and obviously don't now.

Hey, just like airport operations, I don't think port operations should be handed to foreign entities. But, if we're going to have foreign entities involved, in the interest of foreign affairs, we can't exclude a legitimate business run from a US ally country just because they are Arab. And on the surface, the opposition to this deal appears to be based solely on the fact that the UAE is Arab.

[MADem]

47. It took them two weeks to make the break after the attack

...and there were cash transfers subsequent to that break to third party nations that have not, to this day, been fully explained.

By that logic, we may as well let Pakistan or Saudi Arabia take over our border security--after all, they were the other two nations that had formal diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Both dictatorships, too.

Foreign government agencies, particularly those owned and managed by dictators, have no damn business running any national security related businesses in the US. And your assertion that this is all about racial profiling is nonsensical. Arabs are heavily invested in the US--they own massive chunks of banks, commercial businesses, Time Warner, Apple Computer, and a TON of real estate--high end real estate, too. But they have no business managing our ports, our airports, our borders, or any public-private entity with a national security aspect. They just DON'T.

This deal stinks. It was made in secret, the details of it are classified, and there was no sunshine on it at all. The thirty day period for objections, which could not be raised because the entire process was classified, has passed. The horse is still in the barn, but the nitwit cowboy has opened the barn door. It was one thing to shovel cash at Musharraf to get him to behave (though Osama still wanders around the ass end of his nation, by many reports) but this is just STUPID. And DANGEROUS. And if you can't see that, well, you aren't looking very hard.

[noblecooley]

30. Most of what you said..,

makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion. I hope most people here are concerned more with the truth than making rash decisions, shallowly, based only on the fact that a company doing business in our ports is Arab. That's really all we know about this company. Well, that and they successfully run port operations in many countries around the world.

[MADem]

36. Maybe that's all you know, in which case you need to do some research

Start with my post above. This is not "just an Arab company," it is an Arab company that is GOVERNMENT OWNED by a government that is a DICTATORSHIP. By a government that funded the TALIBAN and grew 911 hijackers....that employs a guy that Bush just appointed to be head of the US MARITIME ADMINISTRATION....that has ties to CSX, which Treasury Secretary Snow used to run, and no doubt still has a shitload of stock in....

This is not a concession stand at the county fair...this is our lifeline, the places where the bulk of our trade and commerce AND MTMC/military sealift transport occurs. This is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, and it was handled cavalierly by a typically incompetent administration.

[noblecooley]

45. Dictatorship?

They aren't really a dictatorship, they're a monarchy posing as a democracy. Either way, they have an open economy with wide spread wealth. They are an ally of the US and have been a supporter during the war.

[MADem]

53. Are you nuts? YOU need to do some reading

You either are confusing the UAE with some other nation that has nominal elections, or you are just spouting nonsense. Seven guys who are supreme rulers over their chunk of turf get together and pick the lead dog. The fact that most of them have similar names has to do with the fact that they are all RELATED. If you want to call that an "election" go ahead. It's probably about as valid as the ones we have over here:

chief of state: President KHALIFA bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 3 November 2004), ruler of Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) (since 4 November 2004); Vice President MUHAMMAD bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 5 January 2006)
head of government: Prime Minister MUHAMMAD bin Rashid al-Maktum (since 5 January 2006); Deputy Prime Minister SULTAN bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 20 November 1990); Deputy Prime Minister HAMDAN bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan (since 20 October 2003)
cabinet: Council of Ministers appointed by the president
note: there is also a Federal Supreme Council (FSC) composed of the seven emirate rulers; the FSC is the highest constitutional authority in the UAE; establishes general policies and sanctions federal legislation; meets four times a year; Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi) and Dubayy (Dubai) rulers have effective veto power
elections: president and vice president elected by the Federal Supreme Council (composed of rulers of the seven emirates) for five-year terms; election last held 3 November 2004 upon the death of the UAE's Founding Father and first President ZAYID bin Sultan Al Nuhayyan (next to be held 2009); prime minister and deputy prime minister appointed by the president
election results: KHALIFA bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan elected president by a unanimous vote of the FSC; MAKTUM bin Rashid al-Maktum unanimously reaffirmed vice president ...Political parties and leaders: none Political pressure groups and leaders: NA


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ae.html

[MADem]

55. You edited your post to eliminate your assertion that they were a

democracy with elections. You can call those guys monarchs, but what they are is a bunch of dictator-thugs who take turns running the show--seven guys make the call, and the people have NO SAY. No way to polish that turd.

[noblecooley]

69. A true dictatorship

wouldn't allow a truly free economy, which the UAE has. I run a business that deals with international trade, and I do business regularly with business owners in the UAE, and I can assure you that they benefit from free trade.

Now, the way they run their government may not be a democracy, but it's also not a thug dictatorship. There are other ways to run a government than true democracy, and all and all, the UAE does a decent job of providing their citizens with a free way of life without free elections. I don't agree with it, but I'm not ready to crucify them or send B-2's in there to get their government to conform to our way of life.

And I did edit my post before you posted your first reply. My apologies.

[MADem]

74. I used to live in that end of the world, for longer than I wanted to

Trust me, it ain't all that nice up close. And it's a thug dictatorship. When you disagree with the boss, you can disappear...that ain't free to me. You assume your phone is tapped. Sometimes, you come home, and you know some asshole from the government has been in your house, looking through your shit. You are frequently followed.

If you enjoy a certain income level, it might be nice to have some poor humpbacked old lady clean your house, or be able to get your jazzy orange juice in the space age container, or frozen corn in the brand new middle eastern supermarket (Buccaneer?? Yep, a buck an ear!!!) or ten dollar cans of Maxwell House, and drive your fancy Mercedes, or better still, hire some clown to drive you around all day, but when you cannot talk about the ruling entities without speaking in code and whispers, you aren't free, and it sucks.

And the people who live over there, and who can't leave, like I could, know it.

And on edit: If the economy were truly free, the GOVERNMENT would not own all the good businesses...it's a free economy, all right, for the ruling families!

[ecstatic]

24. You are right, but that company CAN'T control the actions of its employees

Who I assume will be mostly from foreign lands? Lands where the population is overwhelmingly sick of America? Come on, we have to be realistic about this.

[noblecooley]

32. I don't know much about port operations

but I know a lot about business. Businesses don't transport labor in large volume overseas. My guess would be that the people who are currently employed will be kept, with some fat trimming. Management may be brought in from elsewhere, but again, just because they are foreign doesn't mean that they are terrorists. And if the managing company was such a risk to our National Security, then again, why is our port management left to foreign entities? There are many questions to be answered.

[AntiFascist]

39. Welcome to DU, now please educate yourself....

Please read up on AQ Khan, the neocon agenda, PNAC, terrorist links to the BFEE, and creative destruction. We'll let you slide for now, since you're new.

[noblecooley]

46. Just because I'm new..

to DU doesn't mean I'm new to politics, but thanks for your concern. I'm a Libertarian, so I guess I have the benefit of not wearing blue or red colored glasses.

[MADem]

58. You might benefit from a full reading of the forum rules

This is a site for people who support democratic and progressive causes and candidates. Now, I don't know what kind of libertarian you are (they range from Democrats who can't commit, to Republicans who want to smoke pot), so I am not going to assume anything about your politics. Only you know if this is the right place for you based on your views. The exclusion of GOP types isn't to be mean to people, mind you, but there are plenty of other places on the web for those kinds of discussions.

But if you aren't a progressive, you won't find much enthusiasm here.

[noblecooley]

61. Democrats who can't commit?

What's there to commit to? It doesn't seem to me that there is even a remotely unified Democratic agenda. LOL

I'll explain my political beliefs tomorrow, but I do agree with many Democratic views. It's late, and it will take a while to write. But it seems to me that you would welcome people who disagreed with your views. A bunch of people with the same views on a political forum sounds pretty boring.

[MADem]

66. No, this isn't a debate club--there is a wide spectrum of opinion within

the party, and that certainly gets thrashed out here on a daily basis, but the goal here is to grow and strengthen our organization, articulate the key issues of the day, discuss current strategies and tactics, get the latest news, but not waste our energies playing word games with the opposition. They also have a forum, not as easily navigated as this one, where they do the same thing.

As I said, there are plenty of other forums where that sort of engagement is welcomed, and some people here also enjoy those--but this is not the place for right-left debate.

Fair warning!

[noblecooley]

67. I lean left

but I don't form my opinions along either party line. Thanks for the warning, though.

[kysrsoze]

70. You haven't leaned left at all in your arguments

Your arguments support big government, lack of oversight, insider deals and other general Neocon talking points. Stick around for awhile. You might learn something.

[noblecooley]

78. You have me pegged wrong

I don't support big government, insider deals or lack of oversight for big government. In fact, I support small government and freedom of the individual, but that's a pretty unrealistic ideal in this country where two political systems control our government, each with their own contradicting views of big government. I also support free international trade and I think we have a lot to gain by trading with Arabs. Unfortunately, the fact that our politicians have connections with big business is a direct reflection of our political system. Political power in the US requires a hell of a lot of money, and with money comes personal financial motivations, and that's true in large part no matter where your political affiliations lie.

[stickdog]

72. The argument against this is that we have NO BUSINESS

outsourcing our security. Period.

[noblecooley]

79. We're not outsourcing our security

We're outsourcing port operations management. Logistics. Security is handled by US agencies.

[barb162]

13. NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!

Americans should run their own ports

[Djinn]

16. Americans like those

who were in chanrge of airport security prior to 9/11

[The Magistrate]

14. Strongly Against, Sir

But rather glad it is happening, as it is political dynamite....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Why are you glad it's happening?

From where I'm sitting, it's giving the reasonably sizeable group of anti-Arab/Muslim bigots on DU as rich a vein to dig as the furore over the cartoons did....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

63. As A Matter Of Practical Politics, Ma'am

The rich vein of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims in this country makes this a very useful event. My interest is seeing people move in the right direction at the ballot box, and why they move makes no difference to me.

Rational considerations and arguments make no difference at all in this case. What the people see is the administration placing U.S. security in the hands of Arabs, and getting damned pissy about doing so to boot. It does not matter if this perception is true or false, for this will greatly undercut the "we are your sure protectors" image that is their one remaining strength among the people at large. The group most offended by it will be precisely the bloc of open bigots on whose hatred the Republican Party relies for its mass electoral support. Their vote for that party will be suppressed to some degree in November by this event.

The process is not pretty, but it tends in the right direction, and so my view is that it is a good thing it is happening.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I'd prefer to see this happening without the bigotry it carries...

It's definately not a pretty looking sight, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable at all with it. If it were a similar sort of thing that exposed bigotry against Jews, could you be as pragmatic? I expect the answer would be yes to that one, coz I know yr pretty well consistant on things where it comes to all things pragmatic...

As a foreigner, I find the idea that the US is so keen to 'outsource' sensitive parts of its infrastructure to be amazingly inept. Makes me wonder how safe the IRS is or whether they'll hand control of US revenue collection over to some multinational or something. Maybe that's why I'm so stunned that it takes a sort of appeal to the deep-seated bigotry in Americans to make them realise that foreign control of US ports is something that shouldn't happen...

Violet...

[mondo joe]

103. I think you have assumed an anti-Arab bias, rather than an

anti-UAE government bias.

So if you assume it's bigotry, you'll see bigotry. I don't believe for most people that is the case, and as regards DU for the supermajority I believe that is not the case.

[Justin54B20L]

18. Ok, a "state" owned business in a politically unstable region?

Doesn't this just scream like a bad idea? I mean if there happened to be a change in the political landscape of UAE along the lines of the recent Hamas win in Palistine, then those in charge of that government would be in charge of our ports.

Opposing it isn't racist, its just logical in the sense of politics and security.

[MADem]

22. Excellent point--I'm sure the Chinese government would do a bang up job

Would we give it to them? I think not! When governments are running businesses in your country, it just isn't good for business....

[ecstatic]

19. Against, because their first loyalty would not be to this country

Which is perfectly understandable, given our presence in the Middle East. I honestly think it would be playing with fire to do business with a nation where 99% of the population despises the US.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. How about "Don't care"? I've been involved in...

international shipping one way or another for half my working life, and don't see it as particularly good, but can't see it as so bad. Just sounds like another of the infinite deals in the business. Like when no one noticed Maersk and the SeaLand deal or Ultramar and Pittston.

In all of the pissing and moaning between bouts of tinfoil conspiracy mutterings, no one has actually bothered to talk about what horrible things these cheeky Arabs can or will do in port management that no one else could do without running the ports.

I swear no one talking about this, including me, really knows just what their interest in the ports is. The ships will be the same, the security, such as it is, will be the same, the stevedores, truckers and warehousers will be the same...

Newark, NJ owns Port Newark, and leases it to the Port Authority of NY&NJ. The Port Authority owns most of the infrastructure, and Maher Terminals, or whatever they might be calling themselves now, owns much of the rest. I am assuming that Maher is what's up for sale, and this means simply that thse guys will simply taking over the management of some of the terminal facilities. Like SeaLand, Maersk and P&O did before them. Facility management is some maintenance, counting containers, organizing trucks, getting ships in and out of the piers, checking bills of lading... Boring stuff that didn't make enough money for Maersk or P&O but still makes enough money for someone interested in it. Sure, there might be some potential for mischief, but the port is already so full of security holes it boggles the mind to think of these guys buying into it just to cause trouble. They wouldn't need to set themselves up as such an obvious target if they meant ill.

Somebody really has to explain just what all the fuss is about. What are these guys really capable of doing that the Danes or Brits weren't?

Or, is it simply that everyone secretly believes all Arabs are out to get us? That "War on Terra" shit got to us after all, eh?

[AntiFascist]

44. Check out this list of transshipment milestones....

for the UAE over the past 30 years (dug up by DUer Emit). This should be enough to cause anyone to be concerned. I don't care how much assurance the president gives us that there will be no security problems, the past performance of this government speaks for itself:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:L35l8PlBm9UJ:www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/transshipment-milestones.html+The+Dubai+Ports+Authority&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20

[noblecooley]

49. Great Info

It looks like they have a long history of cooperation with US Customs.

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Nonsense! It looks bad only if...

you never saw what goes on at many, if not most, ports.

Lebanon was legendary for scams and schemes, and Hong Kong is probably still going strong. Dubai is one of the largest ports in the world, and that particular list pales in comparison to what REALLY goes on daily in any port. Those "terrorist plots" weren't hatched in Dubai and it's only one of many transhipment points. With all the cargo moving through there, the list is a short one indeed.

Over the years I've seen Grancolombiana crews find more and more ingenious ways to get around the hottest docks in the country, containers full of illegals, crews left stranded by owners abandoning their ships, poisonous food getting by inspectors, contraband by the shipful, entire ships and their cargoes being stolen and repainted while at sea, pirates, captains hiring armed guards to keep them safe from their crews, one entire fleet subsidized by weed sales in the Carribbean, and other stuff just this side of unbelievable. Most of these ships ended up here in the US at some point, and we have been as much at a loss to control the problems as they are.

Smuggling, barratry, piracy, and just plain chiseling and low level thievery have always been a large part of merchant marines throughout history and are as big now as they've always been. We had Interpol chasing them down all the time but it was like Whack-a-Mole. Nobody ever got caught.

What scares me a lot more than terrorists is just plain old frozen shrimp. Dunno if its still going on, but we had a small problem with Asian shrimp and the refrigeration failing (or being turned off by cheap operators) and it was kinda smelly when it got here. It would be rejected at Los Angeles, the insurance claim filed, and new papers were forged as it made its way to San Francisco to be rejected again and paid for again. Maybe it went to Seattle and Vancouver first, or maybe they got scared and went directly to Mexico when it was really ripe and it was sold for pet food processing. The Mexicans treated the stuff that hadn't turned to goo with formaldehyde, froze it, and trucked it up here as Mexican Gulf shrimp for your dining pleasure at the all-you-can-eat bar. Didn't make the papers, but we had a good laugh at the guys who paid the claims.

Here in NY-NJ, the Arabs are getting the Maersk-SeaLand docks, the NYC passenger terminal, and some of the car docks. They don't get Maher (well over half of the port) the oil terminals, or any of the rest of it. And they don't "control" any of it. It's still the Port Authority that runs things and terminal operators are contract managers.

Yeah, sure, they could cause mischief, but I don't see any reason why they would. At least not any more mischief than already goes on in the port.

BTW, there are some more indictments coming down for mob influence in the ILA. The docks have been cleaned up a lot over the years, but I still don't hear nearly as much yelling about that as I do about Ay-rabs coming into the ports.

[AntiFascist]

65. I'm sure there is plenty of smuggling and laundering that goes on...

at all ports, especially in the U.S. What catches my attention are the smuggling of specific WMDs, including nuclear components, to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. This CANNOT be common at all ports, in fact the info. seems to indicate that Dubai is the center for this specific type of smuggling.

I know that they are cracking down on security, but they still cannot inspect every cargo container.

It is regrettable that many on the Republican side are focusing mostly on the racial aspect of the issue, but here on DU we need to point to the real underlying problems.

[MADem]

71. I agree with you completely--Tony Soprano lifting a container of mopeds

is not at all the same as sneaking heavy water off to Iran.

Also, as I have said elsewhere, if this deal was not such a big deal, why was the ENTIRE PROCESS CLASSIFIED? They made the decision, waited until the thirty day "back out" period had passed, and then announced it as a fait accompli. No opportunity for review or comment. A big FUCK YOU to the American people.

What are they hoping to do? Use these guys to slide into Iran in some fashion? Is this a quid pro quo, like the billions we have handed to another former friend of the Taliban, Musharraf (who still can't find Old Sama hiding out in his own dictatorship)? Like kissing Saudi Princes, who also were Taliban pals once upon a time?

This whole deal stinks...and the Iranian connections, in all their hideous glory, to UAE makes me WONDER. Of course, when you talk about Iran, you can't wave the "Arab discrimination" bloody shirt--because they aren't ARABS!!!

Letting dictators run a public-private entity with national security implications is simply a BAD IDEA. As I also said above, we wouldn't be thrilled if the Russian government, or the Chinese government, or how about the North Korean government, were taking this task on, either. The Arab canard is just a distraction and it is a poorly crafted one, at best--if they didn't anticipate an uproar over this done deal, why the secrecy???

[noblecooley]

80. Thirty Day Backout Period?

You've mentioned this a couple of times now. What thirty day backout period are you talking about?

[MADem]

81. After they took the decision to let the sale go through, there was a

30 day period where either side could back out of the deal, no harm, no foul. After thirty days, the deal is done. The thirty days have passed.

However, some enterprising legal beagles have come up with a wrinkle in the law, that offers some room to move, only it will take the Monkey to do it:

It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

[noblecooley]

85. Thirty Days

The quoted statement doesn't explain a thirty day backout period. Explain that further please.

[MADem]

88. No, I explained it, and noted a possible out,but if you need a cite, here

The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence that DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended, the department said.
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/02/17/ap2534556.html

[On the Road]

48. There is Certainly a Lot of Hysteria About This

and frankly, I don't know how seriously to take it.

But one possibility does seem worth considering: that there will UAE employees, probably management, at the port sites themselves. The fact that members of the royal family used to go camping with binLaden, shows that sympathy for Islamic militants is not confined to the rabble, but extends all the way the top of the society.

A management employee with motivation would seem to have good opportunity to facilitate shipments of contraband or WMDs into the US, if necessary bending the rules, evading security, or even simply knowing the protocol well enough to avoid difficulties. Earlier today, a DUer in the Coast Guard mentioned some ways this might happen.

Now, this doesn't worry me so much that I'll freak out. My girlfriend lives within sight of the Baltimore port, and I'm there constantly. But with the many tens of billions of dollars spent on relatively remote terrorist threats, this sale opens up whole new concerns for no apparent reason.

[MazeRat7]

33. I voted for it because.....

I would rather P&O be owned by DP World than PSA. Neither is a good choice, but since P&O is being sold, the question is which company would I like to see acquire it.

MZr7

[BlueCollar]

50. undecided

since my local right-wing radio folks are so bowed up about it....methinks there's a trap....

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Once upon a time I was very in favor of doobies and port wine.

But that was during my "reckless youth". :hippie:

[enigmatic]

52. against

I don't care who it is.

[f-bush]

60. Done...Pretty lopsided vote I'd say!

[Renew Deal]

64. Ultimately it's a bad deal.

There's just no good way to justify it. Besides that, aren't there any US companies that can do this job?

[Raine]

75. Against it

I'm not an IDIOT (like chimp)! :silly:

[PBass]

92. Can't think of a reason to be for it.

I'm surprised Halliburton didn't get the contract. After all, they are the only company in the world who has the ability and experience to do a job like this, on this kind of scale.



:sarcasm:

[iconoclastNYC]

100. This issue is a political A-BOMB for the president.

He just nuked his base.

[anarch]

106. nah...his "base" are people who will somehow make money off of this

What has happened is that a portion of the ignorant masses who blindly voted for him are getting a rude awakening as to where his interests really lie. Personally, I never understood where the working class republican vote was coming from, since every policy the Bush regime ever put into effect was absolutely inimical to the working class...and, well, maybe that voting bloc is going to see some mass defections after this. I mean, all practical security considerations aside, it's a transparent example of Bush kowtowing to corporate interests and flagrantly disregarding strong public opinion. It's 100% in line with Bush's agenda and character.

Maybe he's thinking now that he shouldn't have been so heavy-handed with all that "you support or harbor terrorists and you will be considered a terrorist" and "crusade" talk, huh?

[peacetalksforall]

101. I'm against privatization of the ports. Whether we're talking our land,

our taxes, our security - they should not be in corporate hands.

[durrrty libby]

102. I heard DHL is owned by Saudi Arabia

If so, how is this any different?
Planes flying all over the place and such.

Admittedly I’m a little confused.

I do believe our country has been sold off to the highest bidder, and also, the fact that we haven’t been attacked again, is purely dumb luck.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. *Shrug* One corporation is just like any other.

I'm not prone to being stampeded by jingoism or racism or corporate propaganda. Whatever corporate bunch gets the port deal will be just like any other.