Port Nonsense

[Griff]

When I found myself agreeing with Hillary I knew I had to review my position. I don't care if foreign companies run our ports but I'm disturbed that foreign government owned companies are running them. I'm cool with the profit motive but gov operations tend to be driven by other motivations. Unfortunately, this is also Hillary's position so I must be missing something.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

When I found myself agreeing with Hillary I knew I had to review my position. I don't care if foreign companies run our ports but I'm disturbed that foreign government owned companies are running them. I'm cool with the profit motive but gov operations tend to be driven by other motivations. Unfortunately, this is also Hillary's position so I must be missing something.

That's ok, I have the same problem when I find myself agreeing with Bush. Fortunately, such occasions are rare. The problem with governments is that they can change faster than companies. Consider the point of view of countries having US as a partner. There are many countries who would have been glad to deal with the Clinton or GHB adminstration who would not touch the GWB adminstration. If the US were running their ports, they might find themselves as a transhipment point for any number of quasi-legal initiatives and covert operations.

If the UAE were to undergo some radical shift, we might end up with the Muslim Brotherhood running a US port. GWB seems to think that letting the UAE in is a sign of trust will keep that from happening. It's hard to reconcile that naive opinion with Guantanamo Bay, torture, secrecy, wiretapping, etc. The administration seems to be talking out of both sides of it's mouth when it comes to the war on terror. On one hand, they demand lack of transparency, diminished rights, disgregard for international conventions, and on the other hand they go out of their way to streamline a deal that at first glance appears to be counter intuitive.

Either the adminstration is even stupider than most people expect, or there is something here that noone, not even Congress is being told. Since most of the unilateral decisions coming from the current occupant of the White House have turned out to be colossal cluster f**ks, this does not fill me with confidence.

[Undertoad]

I'm sure I don't know the right answer to this one, but I love it when issues cut deeply across the usual lines. Jimmy Carter is in favor of the sale. WTF?

[elSicomoro]

I admit that when I first heard about this, I was alarmed that a Middle Eastern company would be taking over security at American ports. Now, my position is similar to Griff's and Rich's. I'll give the president kudos for having a pair of brass ones, but you just don't fuck with Congress in this way.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The UAE owned company buying 21 U.S. ports is just another transaction in the selling of America by Bush/Cheney buddies, Halliburton, Big Oil, Walmart, et al.

An interesting (and I think correct) opinion from the Persian Journal .

[wolf]

Isn't this something to do with protecting/keeping an airbase in the UAE that we've been kind of relying on lately?

Originally Posted by wolf

Isn't this something to do with protecting/keeping an airbase in the UAE that we've been kind of relying on lately?

Sounds like oil and a naval port may be the tie-ins. From Reuters

Bush has vowed to veto any legislation to block the deal and says the United Arab Emirates is a partner in combating terrorism. U.S. warships frequently call at the UAE's Jebel Ali port, which is managed by Dubai Ports.


IMPORTANT CUSTOMER

Dubai Ports chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem played up the company's record on security at a new oil terminal used by the U.S. Navy in Djibouti, a strategically important Horn of Africa country that hosts U.S. troops hunting Islamic militants.

"In fact we have gone beyond the security measures required by regulations," he said at the inauguration of the Doraleh terminal, which is managed by Dubai Ports and serves the U.S. and French navies as well as commercial customers.

"The fact that the Navy still is an important customer here speaks volumes for the initiative we have in place," Bin Sulayem told the gathering on the quays beside the guided missile cruiser USS Vicksburg.

[tw]

Dubai is so close an ally that (I believe) the headquarters for the US Fifth Fleet is in Dubai. But they are Islamic and therefore must be dangerous! So is Turkey - one of America's closest allies in NATO.

It sickens me how naive so many politicians can be. First, who runs the movement of containers does not determine security. It is why shipping security is performed at the ports of origin. Anyone can put a nuclear bomb in a container in Tim Buc Too and ship it to the US. Security of that container is performed long before that container enters a harbor. Worry about where security must be performed - by US Customs in those overseas ports.

The port management company simply moves ships and containers. If any security functions are performed, it is by American workers for that company who notify Customs and Coast Guard officials - no matter who owns the company.

And finally, what is the most dangerous source of domestic terrorism? Domestics. People inside this country. Who moves ships and sealed containers has near zero to do with security. Security is provided by who polices that movement and who does security in ports of origin. If the container ship is in an American harbor, well, way too late.

But somehow politicians used a mind jerk reaction to somehow know an Islamic owner is dangerous. Tell that to the Fifth Fleet. The whole week of controversy reeks of racist attitudes - judging based only on first impressions.

[Tonchi]

I don't want to be accused of making a racist statement here, but the fact is we don't have to be so much worried that an Arab nation owns the company which will be operating our ports as we should be alarmed that Arab faces will from that point be COMMON around the port areas. Part of the advantage we have so far in the "war against terror" is that THEY do not look like US. A middle eastern male can't just show up in sensitive areas and not be observed and questioned. If Dubai has control over hiring great numbers of service employees all around our nation, how will anybody have a clue whether all of the apparent workers really are secure employees or plants from some terrorist group? Just like the Cole crew thought nothing of a boat with two Arabs approaching and waving, since it was common in the area, what could happen now if hundreds of middle eastern males could be involved in the loading or unloading of ships every day? We'd have to plant microchips in all of them to know who really belonged there! All it would take is one suicide bomber near a docked oil tanker, and bye bye Long Beach I think we'd have a much better chance to maintain security using an Anglo company, and screw any civil-liberties types who call it profiling.

Originally Posted by tw

Dubai is so close an ally that (I believe) the headquarters for the US Fifth Fleet is in Dubai. But they are Islamic and therefore must be dangerous! So is Turkey - one of America's closest allies in NATO.

Dubai has been named a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. In addition, the UAE was one of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afganistan.

Only one in 20 shipping containers entering the US is physically inspected.

Source

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Part of the advantage we have so far in the "war against terror" is that THEY do not look like US. A middle eastern male can't just show up in sensitive areas and not be observed and questioned.

It may not be racist, but it certainly is naive. No matter who owns the company - Brits or Arabs - the same many colors of faces will be employed. Do you think they will fire all the Americans and bring in Arabs? Of course not. That would be daft. And yet that is the logic being used by the fearful. Those who buy into the expression "war on terror".

There is no war on terror. There is a war on Islam. After all, America invaded Iraq only because something might happen. Because it was them and not us over there. If called a 'Crusade', then you have posted more accurately. If it was a war justified by a smoking gun, then we would be rebuilding Afghanistan and chasing bin Laden. But it is not a "war on terror". There was no terrorism coming out of Iraq. It was coming out of Afghanistan.

Just like the Cole crew thought nothing of a boat with two Arabs approaching and waving, since it was common in the area, what could happen now if hundreds of middle eastern males could be involved in the loading or unloading of ships every day?

If Timothy McVey was Islamic, then that too would have been Arabic terrorism - even though McVey bombed for completely different reasons. Don't fall for hype promoted by propaganda: "war on terror". The justified war is with an organization that we offended - Muslim Brotherhood (not to be confused with a related political party of the same name). In particular - bin Laden who we are make virtually no effort to attack, kill, or capture. An organization that would have completely ignored Americans to instead attack their original enemies - Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, the King of Jordan, the Saudi Royal family, etc.

Somehow we attacked someone who was a threat not even to his adjacent neighbors - Saddam. Somehow we have promoted a myth that Saddam is the 'war on terror'. Total bullshit. But then how many bothered to learn when George Jr was promoting this unjustified war?

What are we really fighting? A "war on myths". Or the "Mission Accomplished" war. Myths that now have us in the middle of what could be an Iraqi civil war. Myths that have justified the 'Pearl Harboring" of Iraq, Iran, and N Korea.

Provided multiple times are viable solutions. It starts by first confronting and discounting myths such as "war on terrorism". However so many are now so brainwashed in this "enemies everywhere" mentality as to even fear Dubai. If not racism, then what else could it be?

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by tw

It may not be racist, but it certainly is naive. No matter who owns the company - Brits or Arabs - the same many colors of faces will be employed. Do you think they will fire all the Americans and bring in Arabs?

No, I don't think that. But I KNOW that an Arab company will hire every one of their relatives they can cram onto the payroll in the management/administrative area. That is how they live and do business over there. Do you really think Bin Laden's father had so many jobs that needed doing that he hired all 50 of his sons and their entire families? Do you think that all 10,000 relatives of the Saudi royal family really are qualified for the positions they hold and deserve the money they are paid? And a Dubai company might be forced to deal with the unions who are already in place on the docks and the Mafia reps who control them, but do you really think there will NOT be an increasing number of middle eastern faces in oversight positions? You think no changes will not take place when a different multinational company takes over? Who are you calling naive?

I put quotes around "war on terror" precisely because I do not buy that concept. I've made it very clear elsewhere what a joke I think that is, so don't be so quick to uncork the same canned rants everytime you see a chance. Tim McVey was a wake-up call, but we hardly have the woods and mountains HERE crawling with armed religious extremists. Every single time, EVERY time somebody gets blown up in Europe, it is a middle eastern male, a middle eastern woman controled by them, or the occasional marginalized loser who has gone to live and practice killing with them. We are not at war with Islam, we are at war against the nuts who claim Islamic justification. The US cheerfully ignores some of the worst abuses of Islamic doctrine in our supposed ally Saudi Arabia, and Saddam was the most secular regime in the entire middle east so Islam had nothing to do with invading Iraq either. Americans simply don't like people who want to blow us all to hell. What POTUS managed to do with that justification is something else entirely.

It's not myths and hype that cause concern about changing the mix of workers at our most vulnerable areas. We give up the one real advantage to our defense, the fact that people of that group are hardly ever present in these environments. This is the same reason exactly why we can't plant anybody inside THEIR operations overseas - we do not look like each other or fit in well in the other's neighborhoods. The people who would like to destroy us are not named Smith or Jones. There are valid reasons for being sceptical. We will have very little control of the policies inside this new company, there is going to be a veil over what they do and with whom and we are giving up the right or the ability to know.

[xoxoxoBruce]

but we hardly have the woods and mountains HERE crawling with armed religious extremists.

Actually, we do...they're christians.

I'm concerned, not that it's a foreign company, but a foreign government. Companies are motivated by profits, but governments have other agendas that change as often as the people running them.
Not just ports but any critical infastructure, should not be owned by a foreign entity, not even Brits.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Companies are motivated by profits, but governments have other agendas that change as often as the people running them.

Maybe...but isn't the motivation usually financial? With a rare, true ideological exception, most government intrigue seems to be ultimately about money, having and controlling more of it and moving it from the public coffers into the hands of a select few individuals.

The US Treasury cannot be robbed at gunpoint like a convenience store. Stealing an amount equivalent to the gross national product of a small nation takes large, complex modus operandi, often beginning with winning an election.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

No, I don't think that. But I KNOW that an Arab company will hire every one of their relatives they can cram onto the payroll in the management/administrative area. That is how they live and do business over there. Do you really think Bin Laden's father had so many jobs that needed doing that he hired all 50 of his sons and their entire families? Do you think that all 10,000 relatives of the Saudi royal family really are qualified for the positions they hold and deserve the money they are paid?

I believe you are confusing Saudi concepts with Arab. More secular nations tend not to be so disruptive. But then if American ports have more employees from Dubai, why is that any different than more employees from Britain? Dubai is a very close American ally. If not, then Turkey also is not to be trusted.

Meanwhile I am appalled that some here fell for this obvious Rush Limbaugh type propaganda:

Dubai has been named a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. In addition, the UAE was one of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afganistan.

Using that same reasoning, then America is also a terrorist nation. It’s called containers. They also pass through the US with nothing more than paperwork to inspect.

If the ports are at risk, then we must stop international trading. The threat is no for one reason the employees moving containers. The threat are the many companies how hand off and exchange containers in the port of origin and during shipping through many other ports. Who runs a company that only moves the containers one more time - and not worry about all the other companies that do same - is naivety. And that is what this port controversy is about – too many voices that did not first learn the facts.