If you don't think we should outsource our port security, you're racist!

[stickdog]

News at 11.

Investment news, that is.

[MazeRat7]

1. Some of it has long since been outsourced to the Brits...

At least the several ports in question have been managed by a British firm that is for sale. Your post should be about who P&O should sell to - the UAE company DP World or the Singapore Company PSA. Or in other words... who do you like least - the Chinese or the Arabs... P&O is going to be sold so those are the choices if you insist on bringing racism into all this.

On edit: From an investment side.. I'd go with DP World. PSA is to involed with Hutchinson for my taste.

MZr7

[stickdog]

2. How about US federal, state and/or local governments?

Or barring that, a US-owned company?

Why the fuck does some foreign company have to manage our ports?

[MazeRat7]

4. Sure, find a US company that can pony up the 6.8Bln or so and its done.

There are US companies in port management, but none that can broker such a large deal.

MZr7

[stickdog]

8. 6.8 billion? That's what we spend in Iraq in a FUCKING month.

Don't pretend that no choices exist here.

Sorry if I'm stepping outside your nexus of reality here, but GLOBOCORP INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATION UNLIMITED ain't the only conceivable way of getting this job done.

[MazeRat7]

11. True. I was amazed there weren't more companies interested in P&O

[sandnsea]

10. Deutsch Bank arranging financing for DPWorld

Deutsch and Barclays Capital. Citigroup was arranging financing for one of the other bidders. If we don't have a US company that can get a $6 billion loan, we're in alot deeper doodoo than just having our ports controlled by foreign countries.

[noblecooley]

16. The real issue is

There are a lot of companies who could afford to buy this company, but I don't think there are any companies who deal with port management who can operate at this large of a level or obtain the financing to do so. Microsoft Corporation, for example, isn't going to buy a port management operation. They wouldn't know what the hell they're doing. The business world isn't always black and white or left and right.

[MazeRat7]

17. Exactly... there aren't a lot of players in this biz...

and P&O needed shareholder approval for the sale, they would not get that for just any company... only those with experience in this field. All of which are non-US companies.

Good post and welcome to DU !!!

MZr7

[stickdog]

18. The business world may not always be black and white, but

it's always fucking green. And that's the only color that can suddenly get Repukes lecturing Dems about our supposed xenophobia.

[noblecooley]

25. What?

I have no idea what that has to do with anything being discussed here.

[stickdog]

30. Why am I not surprised? I got you something that might help. It's a

[noblecooley]

36. I know!

It was Colonel Mustard, wearing his tin foil hat, in the Oval Office with with a reach around!

[MazeRat7]

37. Now that's funny.

[stickdog]

39. Close. It's Mr. Green in the Laundry Room with a Hypodermic Needle.

But thanks for playing!

[sandnsea]

19. Oh give me a fuckin' break

They're OUR goddamned ports. OUR workers run the fuckin' things. OF COURSE we can manage ports. Who the hell do you think have been managing them for 100 years??? What the friggin' hell kind of kool-aid have you been drinking.

[MazeRat7]

23. A British company has been managing them.. now the company is for sale.

So for the 7 ports in question, no we don't "run" things...we (americans) only work there. But you knew that right ?

MZr7

[sandnsea]

28. Cuz we're only good for forklift driving

Cuz we're just a bunch of dumbfucks.

Go peddle it someplace else. It's complete bullshit that we can't run our own goddamned ports.

[noblecooley]

33. No, we're not dumb fucks

There are tons of businesses that the US leads the world in - tons of them. Hell, we own more of the world than any other country. It just so happens that foreign entities run our ports and other ports around the world and have the ability to outbid US companies. It doesn't even sound like a US business had a remote shot at bidding for this sale. Hey, if a US company had the ability to buy the operation, they had the ability to bid. But in the real world, that's not the way things worked out.

[sandnsea]

41. 2 state owned companies

In Singapore and Dubai. And yet we're supposed to slop right into this free market bullshit that foreign companies don't even adhere to, that has put us in the position of selling port operations to foreign countries. You're selling out your future with your Econ 101 nonsense. They won't tell you that, but you are.

No country. No borders. No labor protections. No consumer recourse because there's no US businesses who have to follow US laws. All gone. To a multinational global power. That's what you're making excuses for.

[stickdog]

46. Exactly. THEIR state-owned corps can manage OUR ports, but

we can't even speak of state-owned (or even state-partnered) anything, lest we be strung up for our offenses against the Great Globocorporate God of hypercapitalistic outsourcing.

[MazeRat7]

35. Thats not the point. Sure we can "run" them but who "owns" the contracts

Do you just not understand this or are you being contrary just for the hell of it ? Yes Americans work at these ports, but the contracts for running these operations belong to a foreign company. Could an American company take over these contracts ? Yes... but none has offered to do so.. hence the sale to yet another foreign company.


MZr7

[sandnsea]

40. And only Halliburton can fix Iraq

Yeah, right. I don't care if the US government buys the contracts for $6 billion dollars and then subcontracts them back out to local port service companies. The idea that we can't run our own ports is koolaid drinking bullshit. Is that clear enough for you?

[noblecooley]

44. That's great in theory

But it isn't going to happen. These contracts are owned by a private company with the expertise to run this operation, and they are selling it to another company with the expertise to run the operation. The US Government isn't going to buy these contracts for $6 billion only to spend billions more to learn how to run this operation and then train people to do it, only to lose billions themselves as well as cost other private companies a ton of money through the loss of productivity that will inevitably occur due to the clusterfuck that will ensue during the transfer.

[stickdog]

45. So we Americans can't run our own ports w/o losing billions on the deal?

:eyes:

[U4ikLefty]

47. He believes there will be some kind of "clusterfuck" phenomenon

that will cause a loss of unproductivity.

I have been furiously looking up "clusterfuck" in my business books to no avail...oh well!!!

;)

[noblecooley]

49. "Clusterfuck"

1. A period of disarray that occurs when an experienced organization with the appropriate experience, systems, and defined processes leaves an operation in the hands of less-experienced individuals without the appropriate experience, systems, and defined processes in place.

2. A period of disarray that occurs when the Bush Administration is given the responsibility to handle ANYTHING with only their own experience and initiative at their disposal. See Hurricane Katrina Response.

When the company who currently operates these ports leaves, with them goes their proprietary systems and processes. The company who takes it over either has to have their own systems and processes, or they have to create their own. Our government would fall into the latter group, and design of systems and processes requires trial and error, and inevitably is less productive than having systems and processes already in place.

[U4ikLefty]

52. That is obviously NOT a real definition because of the bad grammar

but that aside, I believe that you are fooling nobody on isisting that ther are no US firms that have experiece at runnung port processes. That the UAE is soooo much more advanced that we would lose billions on handing he operations over US firms. That is the same bullshit that Halliburton pulls in Iraq.

[noblecooley]

58. Bad Grammar?

Among other things, I'm a professional writer, so your insults are laughable. But if you'd like to point out what you think is bad grammar, I'll be glad to entertain your critique of my writing. Clusterfuck is obviously a slang term, and the definition was my interpretation of the meaning.

No US firms bid on this project, so a US firm isn't an option. The recommendation that the other member made to subcontract this operation is nothing more than a pipe dream.

[stickdog]

53. Yes. Managing a port is totally beyond the strategic capabilities

of the United States. :eyes:

[noblecooley]

60. Again...

It's not beyond the capabilities of the US. It's not going to happen because there are companies out there who are ready to take it over with the appropriate experience, systems and processes. For the US Government to take it over would require too much money for it to make sense, and there either weren't any US companies interested in bidding, or there weren't any US port management companies able to obtain the financing required to buy a $6 billion operation.

[stickdog]

64. So guarantee some loans or break up the contracts.

Why do you keep pretending that there are no alternatives other than letting the state owned corporations of FOREIGN COUNTRIES run our ports?

[noblecooley]

66. I'm not pretending anything

But I understand the reality of business and government, and it all comes down to the bottom line. It's been handled by foreign entities for a long time, they handle it efficiently, and there is no requirement to take the project in house, as it would impose unneeded expense. Buying these contracts and moving the operation under the government is nothing more than a pipe dream that was presented by another member of this forum. It's not an option as far as I know.

[stickdog]

70. Since when?

Has the reality of the US healthcare system come down to the bottom line?

Has the reality of US defense contracting come down to the bottom line?

Did the reality of CA's fake "energy crisis" come down to the bottom line?

What the fuck planet do you live on? This is just more BushCo crony-nomics. If BushCo stood to make more on this deal by favoring domestic oversight, BushCo would be pulling out every stop to ensure domestic oversight. Do you ACTUALLY believe that this deal has ANYTHING to do with efficiency and/or some sudden uncharacteristic BushCo urge to borrow and spend less wildly?

Do you realize the TOTAL COST of this ENTIRE deal is far less than just the public land oil rights royalties BushCo is writing off in Big Oil giveaways?

[noblecooley]

73. Huh?

Are you kidding me?

The US Healthcare system generates an assload of money in taxes, not to mention the fact that politicians are in bed with healthcare and/or own stakes in companies who benefit. If it went in house, out go those profits.

US Defense contracting? The exact same thing.

Energy? Come on, man. You have to be smarter than this.

I've been arguing for hours that it would cost too much to move this in house, and it is for the exact same reason. Loss in tax revenues and a hit to the wallet of politicians and the people who elect them.

Thank you for coming to this understanding so that I can quit arguing about this pipe dream of state run ports.

[stickdog]

75. If it's a pipe dream, then so is US democracy.

90% of Americans don't want to outsource our national security to the UAE, and a whole lot of them feel very strongly about this.

[noblecooley]

76. But

There isn't a US based company ready to drop $6 billion to buy this company, so it's going to some foreign entity who is prepared to drop $6 billion with the experience to manage it. This isn't about US democracy. It's about a free economy.

[stickdog]

79. The company bidding $6 billion is FUCKING UAE-OWNED!!!

That's your fucking "free economy"? Some stinking rich Arab assholes are free to pony up their state dollars to control OUR national security and we're NOT FREE to lift a finger to do anything about it?

Even Adam Smith is laughing at you, noblecooley.

[noblecooley]

83. We're free to buy this company

But there aren't any US firms ponying up $6 billion to buy this company, are there? Do you have billions of dollars and the experience to run a port? It doesn't look like anyone else in the US does either. Why are you still arguing this? You just keep going back to the same arguments, and it all keeps coming back to three things:

1 - The British company who owns these contracts is ready to sell now because they want out of this business - NOW.

2 - No US firm bid on the sale of this business.

3 - Running these contracts through state-owned sub-contracts is nothing more than a pipe dream that was created by another member on this site, and it doesn't appear to be a realistic option, at least not one that's been mentioned in any commentary that I've read on this issue.

And on that note, I'm going to bed. If you want to continue arguing this, maybe someone else will come along who believes in pipe dreams. Then the two of you can create plans on how the US will run this internally.

[stickdog]

87. Why does a single US firm have to put up the money?

They are OUR fucking ports. We can make whatever rules we want about them. We can legislate the British contracts into complete worthlessness if we want, and hand the port deals to whomever the hell we please for whatever amount we please.

We may have to pay off the British megacorp a bit for this privilege, IF we choose to recognize the rulings of some international body. Who cares? It's a small price to pay to keep US national security under US national control.

[noblecooley]

48. It takes time and money to implement a new business

I don't care what business you get involved in, if you don't have the systems and processes in place to operate it, you have to spend money for research, design and implementation, and there is a ramp up period to get to a point of optimal productivity. It's not that we can't do it, it's that it would cost a hell of a lot of money to take this over as a governement operation like he recommends. That isn't going to happen when there are businesses out there who are financed to buy this operation and have the experience and systems ready to take it over with little interruption. Plain and simple.

[U4ikLefty]

50. What part of "subcontracts them back out" did you not understand???

the poster clearly stated "subcontracts them back out to local port service companies", yet you insist on painting this as an inefficient gov't attempt at running the ports.

Please prove that these local port companies will cost sigificantly more than the UAE operation. Not with BUS 101 bullshit, but with real numbers that show a significant cost differences between the UAE companies & an assemblage of smaller US firms. I'm sure you have done your homework somewhere in "the real world."

[noblecooley]

51. I understood

My point is that this isn't going to happen because there are large companies out there, albeit very few of them, who can take over an operation of this size with the appropriate funds and experience already in place.

The subcontracting of smaller companies still brings with it the requirement to manage all of those contracts by a government agency that has not handled that project before. Every project requires research and there is always a learning curve involved to get a new operation off of the ground.

This isn't Business 101 bullshit. It's real world experience in project management, at the multi-million dollar level, not the multi-billion dollar level that we're talking about.

Don't bother giving me numbers that show the US can take this over easily. I know from personal experience that it isn't possible.

[U4ikLefty]

56. Oh really, becaue I have MULTI BILLION DOLLAR level experience

...see how hard it was to lie like you did. I believe you have multi-million dollar management experience like I believe you are made of steel...LOL!!!

As far as me "not bothering" to "show you numbers"...don't worry, you're attempt at playing Daddy Warbucks is amusing-but-sad. This is where it ends, because I actually HAVE a job on a multi-million dollar design project to finish tomorrow.

Peace
U4ik

[noblecooley]

61. I didn't say I have Millions

I said I have experience managing multi-million dollar projects. How is that so hard to believe? I have a BS in Information Systems, I've worked in the IT industry for over 10 years, and before I went into business for myself, I worked for several US telecom companies. I've implemented several systems for technical support and product installation with budgets exceeding $10 million. Each project brought with it a period of ramp up and periods of "clusterfuck" as we worked to iron out the errors. It is an inevitable part of systems development, but you probably already know that since you're working on a multi-million dollar design project.

[stickdog]

57. Large STATE OWNED COMPANIES.

You know, as in completely owned by FOREIGN STATES. You keep leaving that part out for some reason.

Tiny third world countries can successfully nationalize port management corporations such that they EXPORT their services to us, but no conceivable US governmental body could possibly hope to oversee the management of our own domestic ports? Because you say so? Because you're the Port Authority, right?

[noblecooley]

63. This state-owned company has done it for years

So, again, I say that this isn't something we CAN'T do. It's something that won't happen because there are cheaper options out there.

[stickdog]

67. Single-payer healthcare would be a lot cheaper than what we've got.

Not going to war in Iraq would have been a lot cheaper.

Having no port security at all would be cheaper.

Why can't you venture outside of you hypercapitalistic box enough come to grips with the fact that it's a HORRIBLE idea to hire a UAE state-owned corporation to manage US port security, and that it would be worth a few extra bucks to have US citizens managing US ports?

[noblecooley]

69. Again...

I didn't say that it can't happen, but I understand the reality of how this government and businesses operate. It won't happen. You can present all of the alternative plans that you want, but the fact remains that this British business is ready to sell, and there are several foreign companies ready to drop $6 billion with the experience to handle the operation right now. It's going to one of those companies. It may not be this UAE company with all of the shit swirling about it. But it's also not going to become a government-funded operation requiring significantly more than $6 billion to implement.

[stickdog]

72. You are DEAD wrong. If enough political capital builds, it will

COMPLETELY trump this measly $6 billion deal.

This is what you are simply incapable of understanding. Why do I feel like FDR talking to Herbert Hoover?

[stickdog]

54. Yes, the US can't hope to manage it's own ports with all the Iraqi

ports it has to manage, right? :eyes:

Because you're the Port Authority (irony alert), right?

[noblecooley]

55. Again I didn't say we CAN'T

We can, but it would cost a hell of a lot of money to implement it, and taking this over as a government run operation isn't going to happen because there are companies ready and waiting to buy this operation with the experience and systems ready to be implemented. I can't believe I even have to argue this.

[stickdog]

59. How about if we just guarantee some loans to US corporations?

Can you get your hypercapitalistic head around even this much socialism?

Suppose we just called it corporate welfare. Could you fathom the concept then?

[noblecooley]

62. Yeah

I can, but our government can't. Billions in government loans would be a lot for the Bush Administration to swallow when there are cheaper options out there.

[stickdog]

68. Jesus Christ. BushCo has never ONCE seen a spending bill that

it didn't do backflips over.

The only difference here is that BushCo makes A LOT MORE handing this off to the UAE than it would otherwise.

[noblecooley]

71. Exactly

And the powers that be probably stand to make more money handing it over to any other company than they would taking it in house because taking it in house would require $6 billion upfront, and then billions a year to operate from then on until they reach the point of profability, which is probably a pipe dream in itself. This is the US Govt. afterall.

[stickdog]

74. Yes, the US government. You know, the one that delivers more packages

overnight far cheaper than any competitor.

You know, the one that seems to be fully capable of managing port security in volatile areas like Iraq.

[noblecooley]

78. USPS has been in operation for over 200 years

and the last time I checked, the USPS doesn't have experience running port logistics. The last time I checked, Iraq isn't currently importing and exporting anywhere near what the East Coast of the US does each year, nor does the US have a firm grasp on much of anything in Iraq, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

[stickdog]

80. Exactly. Americans can't possibly manage their own ports.

Thank God that these managerial geniuses



are around to save us from our national incompetence!

[noblecooley]

84. Quit putting words in my mouth

That isn't what I said and you know it. My argument with you is done.

[stickdog]

88. Glad you finally realized that. (nt)

[noblecooley]

24. Business School Kool-Aid

Just because our workers work for the foreign company and operate the ports doesn't mean that any one of them has enough money to obtain $6 billion in financing. This british company owns the contracts for these ports. The sale of their business includes the rights to manage these ports and collect the revenues associated with running those ports. It all goes into the valuation of the business and the $6 billion price tag, and the shareholders aren't willing to break those contracts up and sell them to different buyers. The company has to be sold to a company with enough capital and experience to run the operation successfully in order to convince a bank that they are capable of making good on a $6 billion loan. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like there is a US company that fits those requirements. Welcome to the world of business.

[stickdog]

26. Welcome to the world where GLOBOCORPORATE

CONGLOMERATE INTERNATIONAL has absolute power.

You know, the one where preamble to THE US CONSTITUTION does NOT say,

"PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE."

You know, the world in which even the barest hint of socialism (gasp!) is THOUGHTCRIME.

[noblecooley]

27. I live in the real world

The place where businesses have value, and people have to know what they're doing in order to obtain billions in financing. It's a left and right world, really.

But thanks for the invite to fantasy land.

WTF?

[stickdog]

34. Exactly. The real world.

The one where Hugo Chavez has already been safely assassinated by Pat Robertson, and crazy ideas like nationalizing national security are again punishable by exile to a reeducation center followed by a bullet to the back of the head.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

98. Explain how Bush being Presdient fits into that neat world view n/t

[mondo joe]

105. HAHAHAHAHA Explain the waste and fraud in Iraq.

Explain Enron.

Explain the S&L debacle.

Explain how that works in the real world.

[MazeRat7]

31. Yo Stick... put down the tequila and go to bed... *grin.

[sandnsea]

29. See #28

And get a fuckin' job.

[ProfessorGAC]

103. Sorry, That's Nonsense

There are dozens of very large logistics and multimodal management companies in this country. The skill set exists, and the management of ports in a country with the level of import/export can be highly profitable. Getting finance is a slam dunk, especially if the gov't backs the move.

There is absolutely no reason why the gov't couldn't intervene and insist that the deal go to an american firm, even if it has to guarantee the loan to the banks.

You say that business isn't black and white, but your statement is an example of what you say it isn't. Logistics is logisitcs, and financing is financing. Any bank or capital firm that knows it will get its money bank would jump at the chance to make a return on a done deal. So, in making that b&w statement, you left out a whole dimension of options.

The Professor

[Harald Ragnarsson]

96. Cool!

They were the same people that made the stock transactions on airlines right before 911!

No foreknowledge there! Nosireebob!

[MADem]

6. A foreign company OWNED by a despotic bunch of thugs, to boot!

That company is not a private concern, it is owned by the UAE government, which consists of a bunch of emirs -- a gang of seven, who do all the electing that is to be done in that country.

[MazeRat7]

15. Well at least there are seven... had they sold to PSA it would have been 1

Not to make lightly of your post, but neither bidder for P&O is clean from ties to "questionable influences". There is no good solution here IMHO. We fucked up by outsourcing operations of these 7 or so ports to a foreign gvmt years ago and then act all surprised when the company running things decides to sell their operations to someone else.

MZr7

[MADem]

20. Here they are, in all their glory

Kisses all round, George!!!!

These guys OWN the UAE. They are despots. These are the guys who hold our ports in their hands.

If there was no big deal about this entire transaction, I would really like the monkey to explain why the decision was made in secret, and the results classified. And why they made the announcement after the thirty day "back out" period has passed. And why a guy who used to work for these seven thugs is suddenly appointed by the Monkeyking as the head of the US MARITIME Agency...

Perhaps we need to have a public-private entity running our ports...after all, "911 changed everything." Perhaps a mix of state and federal oversight, with subcontracts here and there, is the way to go...I just do not think putting the lock, the key, AND the barn door in the hands of these guys is a smart idea, if we want to keep our horses safe and secure.

The previous management may have sucked, but I can't get behind a two wrongs make a right justification. It is past time that we started getting serious about all this "terra" we are supposed to be facing...or Monkeyking should just 'fess up, and tell us that the threat is not as he has been portraying it, and we really have nothing to worry about--he made it all up, kinda like the WMDs.... He can't have it both ways.

[MazeRat7]

22. Your preachin' to the choir on this one. I don't get it either. (n/t)

[stickdog]

21. Whaddya say that WE just buy the company?

You know, with some of the spare change that Halliburton is always dropping on the ground in Iraq?

[The Stranger]

95. What kind of company is Royal-Dutch Shell?

Is it a White company?

[aquart]

5. The Brits, the Chinese, the Scots.

I never even imagined this was possible. Because I never thought ANYONE could be this stupid.

And gosh, I love the implication that Americans are not capable of managing our own ports. Excuse me?

[MazeRat7]

9. Ding..Ding...Ding... we have a winner folks !!!!

Exactly, the real outrage should be that US companies are not managing ALL US ports. Why ? Because we worship the god called "Dollar" and the big three (P&O, PSA, & Hutchinson) do it cheaper. This is really the issue.

MZr7

[roguevalley]

38. the British never harmed us. The UAE apparently have. big diff.

for me, it isn't racist. its security. Australia just issued a terrorist warning for UAE.

[aquart]

43. Honey, did you not take American history?

The British burned the White House in 1814.

Alliances shift.

[stepnw1f]

92. You Had to Go That Far Back

to make that point. Big difference... he's talking about today.

[mondo joe]

100. ROFL!! Yes - let's look at 1814 rather than the decades between then

and now.

Oh mmy god -- that was funny.

[roguevalley]

114. BWAAHAHAHAAHA! I stand corrected. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Australia did NOT just issue a terrorist warning...

The travel advisory was updated last year, and fyi, there's also terrorist warnings for the UK and many other countries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=488031&mesg_id=488066

[Crazy Guggenheim]

3. ..........

:popcorn:

[Bluebear]

7. Outsource airport screening to the Taliban!

:popcorn:

[Warchild]

12. Bush Sells The U.S./ Mexican Border...

To the Mexicans.
From now on the US Immigration Service, Border Patrol and all border operations will be administrated by a reputable transportation company named Speedy Gonzalez's El Norte Express located in Mexico City.
Some rumors about it having ties to migrant labor contractors and narcotic smugglers was downplayed by Bush.
"Mexico is our friend and has stood beside us all through our various problems at the border. We have no reason that this will cause any problems. And besides, I already made the deal so if you don't like it, tough shit."

[stickdog]

13. If you don't fully embrace GLOBOCORP INTERNATIONAL ...

for all your national security needs, then you need to be reeducated in Financial Correctness!

"Hello, this is the New World. May I take your Order?"

[The2ndWheel]

81. Finally

someone making some sense.

[Skittles]

14. I am already sick of this ridiculous argument

it is just unbelievable

[rman]

32. The US is becoming like a 3rd world country,

where the economy is run by corporations from wealthy nations, causing most of the wealth to leave the country.

After several decades of being the main bully exploiting poor countries under the veil of so called "free trade", the US is now itself becoming the victim. Which goes to show that the forces behind globalization are independent of the US, even though many of the individuals who both push for and benefit from "free trade" are US citizens.

[radfringe]

42. if you boycotted France were you also a bigot?

When France and Germany refused to drink the Kool-aid and follow bush* into Iraq - many people were up in arms and called for a boycott of anything french

The congressional dining hall went so far as to rename French Fries (which aren't really french) to Freedom Fries -- were they being bigoted?

don't buy the racist card on this one - it's "REFRAMING THE ISSUE" bush*t

You might as well say invading Iraq, attacking Afghanistan, gearing up to invade Iran (and who knows what other ARAB/Muslim/Islamic country) is being racist.

UAE deal has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or creed -- it has to do with SECURITY

for almost 5 years we've been subjected to the bush* mis-administration waving TERRA TERRA TERRA in our face. We invaded another country because of a supposed WMD-TERRA threat. We are at war because of TERRA. We are on the brink of invading more countries because of TERRA.

Yes, we do have Great Britan running some ports - but Great Britan did not give support to terrorists to crash planes into buildings.

[Mutley]

77. Thank you!

:applause:

[JCMach1]

82. Port SEcurity= Straw MAn

That has always belonged to Customs, the Coast Guard, and other enforcement agencies.

Now, that means Dept. of Homeland Security. They MUST do their job whoever MANAGES the ports.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Thanks for injecting some reality into this whole thing...

I was sitting here wondering to myself why the US doesn't have a Customs service or other security agencies who do what other countries do and look after security when it comes to goods entering and leaving ports. So thanks for pointing that out, though I doubt it's going to sink in with some folk, unfortunately :(

Violet...

[noblecooley]

89. No, it won't

Most people equate port management with port security when they're two different things. They also seem to ignore the fact that is in the best interest of the UAE to be very cautious with the handling of this deal, as intentional entry of damaging items will inevitably lead to the loss of billions as their port management company is forced out of business in ports around the world and/or massive bombing of their own country.

[JesterCS]

85. Hardball

was watching it last nite. Matthews was being nauseating saying " if an arab was piloting your plane, would you get off? "

If he was a pilot, then most likely, hes american. big difference.

Anyway both the guests were pretty headstrong in opposition. Then of course TOm Ridge came on defending it saying that we dont know all the specifics and such.

Then DO SHARE so we can have our minds put at ease.

[stickdog]

90. Kick

[iconoclastNYC]

91. LOL!!!

Well put.

This is all they have.

[The Stranger]

93. Racism and bigotry are the driving forces behind this.

If the company was European (and White), there would be no questions whatsoever, and the groundswell of hate would not be overwhelming every other news item (even on these boards).

[mondo joe]

99. Bullshit. This is about the foreignn government, not the race of the

citizens of that government.

[The Stranger]

102. Bullshit to your bullshit.

If it were a European "White" company, it never would have made the news.

No one (but no one) has yet posted a link to any terrorst act committed by the company at issue.


Care to be the first?

[mondo joe]

104. If it were European it wouldn't have been the UAE which has been tied

to financing terrorists, and it wouldn't be run by a dictatorship in an unstable region.

Would it?

And on behallf of my Arab-American spouse and children, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[The Stranger]

106. So no posted link?

[mondo joe]

107. What link do you need to acknowledge that the UAE exists

in an unstable region?

What link can you provide to prove racism (rather than genuine concern for safety) is behind widespread opposition to this?

[The Stranger]

115. This was the request:

No one (but no one) has yet posted a link to any terrorst act committed by the company at issue.

Care to be the first?

[Megahurtz]

113. Oh yeah, bet on the company!

That's real safe!!!:sarcasm:

[LisaLynne]

101. I agree that maybe this wouldn't have gotten the attention of the ...

entire country if that were the case, but I don't think everyone who opposes it is against it for racist reasons. Personally, I had no idea that a British company had control of the ports before and now that I do know, I don't like it one bit. This administration has tried this before -- if you're against the nomination of Alito or Gonzales, you're racist. That's not true. Some people are reacting out of racism, but others for legitimate reasons.

[hopeisaplace]

94. As a canadian, I say let us do it ..200 mounties on horses lining ports

j/k yah know - It's hard to believe there isn't a single american company
that can do this - Halliburton? *ducks* *slaps own face*

[ecstatic]

97. Are we scared of Arabs or *what we've done to Arabs?*

I think its not so much that Americans are racist, but many of us fear payback for what this country is doing across the world.

[tjwash]

108. I told everyone right after this story broke...

That train is never late...

Remember how we were all homophobic and hated gay people after we called them on Jeff Gannon?

Although my response to the "you're a racist if you don't like the port deal" spin is a short one:

If the country in question was NOT a theocratic sheikdom, where 2 of the WTC hijackers came from, has FBI evidence that ties them to the 9-11 attacks, openly hampered our efforts to find Osama Bin Laden, or openly recognizes the Taliban as the only legitimate government in Afghanistan, it would be racism.

However this is not the case so don't even think about playing the racism card.

[stickdog]

109. MONEY TALKS.

And right now it's lecturing Democrats on OUR supposed xenophobia.

[Hubert Flottz]

110. Who was it said?

Bush said, "Islamic radicals are seeking to establish a “radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia” with Iraq serving as the main front. He singled out Iran and Syria as “allies of convenience” for Islamic radicalism."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9609094/

"Every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation in battle also deserves something else -- an unwavering commitment to the mission, and a clear strategy for victory. (Applause.) On the morning of September the 11th, 2001, we saw the destruction that terrorists intend for our nation. We know that they want to strike again. And our nation has made a clear choice: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not rest or tire until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051025.html

"These extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace and stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics of al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/15/161352.shtml

"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism."

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman10292005.html

How many times have we ALL heard Bush call the people in the Middle East, "Islamic Extremists"? Who is the racist?

[Ksec]

111. It is a stupid point theyre trying to push

Its like really weak. And pointless.

[Megahurtz]

112. Race my Fucking Ass!!!

They are not a fucking race, they are a fucking country!

I'm so tired of hearing this lameass "racist" bullshit!
All that is, is a phrase that is meant to manipulate the person that hears it.
Fuck that!

I swear sometimes I think that people just repeat this drivel
just because they hear someone else say it.:eyes: