Both good and bad.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
I think it's just hilarious that Repukes want to outsource the security of our ports... that's bad enough... but to a country with terrorist ties...

Didn't we just have this conversation?

But hell if we're going to continue with the security line:

“Dubai is a place with few rules, but one of the few things tightly regulated is port security, and that’s why the U.S. Navy feels comfortable using Dubai more than any other port in the world,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East policy.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11518482/

[Patroklos]

You due understand Sava, that so far all of your opposition to this deal is based off of logic places you square in the "redneck" camp of whcih Oeridn alluded to in the OP.

Thre are two, and only two, reasons to oppose this deal. You don't like the idea of an Arab company making money from our ports because it is Arab, or you just don't want any company but an American one making money off of them, in which case your are an economic protectionist.

Both are stupid viewpoints.

[Sava]

yeah

and the concern that we may setting ourselves up for disaster by doing this... you are just failing to comprehend this?

and that's all well and good that Dubai has great port security... MAYBE WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM AND DO IT OURSELVES

oh well, I guess it's best to let the foxes guard the henhouse

[DinoDoc]

oh well, I guess it's best to let the foxes guard the henhouse

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They aren't handling security. That job is still under the Coast Guard and Customs. But why let that get in the way of a rant.

[Sava]

from what I am reading, and what I'm seeing on TV, they are going to be "handling security"...

maybe I'm misunderstanding when I read that this company is going to "takeover US shipping terminals"

this whole debate is about security

but what do I know, I'm just a racist, anti-Arab redneck

[Sava]

why don't we hire Hezbollah to protect our chemical plants while we are at it?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Thre are two, and only two, reasons to oppose this deal. You don't like the idea of an Arab company making money from our ports because it is Arab, or you just don't want any company but an American one making money off of them, in which case your are an economic protectionist.

Both are stupid viewpoints.

Oh, ye who knows all viewpoints, be not so hot-tempered.

1.) How would Arabs feel if an American company controlled Arab ports? Oh yeah, we already know how they feel.

2.) How is it economic protectionism to want American companies to be involved in the operation of American ports? Not ports we operate in the Pacific or South America, but actual ports on the American seaboard.

3.) I'm not so sure your whole "HATING THIS DEAL IS RACIST" attitude is valid. I don't dislike any Arabs, North Africans, or Muslims in general. I'm just not comfortable having a nation that recognized the Taliban controlling US ports.

4.) There are far more than TWO viewpoints.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

But hell if we're going to continue with the security line:

“Dubai is a place with few rules, but one of the few things tightly regulated is port security, and that’s why the U.S. Navy feels comfortable using Dubai more than any other port in the world,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East policy.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11518482/

DD, I've been nice enough to start a decent thread and to behaive intellectually honest so please don't post junk from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It is a well known Republican think tank. It started off decently as a pro-Israel lobby in the 1980's but it has now become a mimic of Republican political positions and little else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

As usual with contriversial or politically charge issues the WIfNEP's wiki entry is a mess but the very fact that it has been contested so much that the operators of wiki had to put a freeze on it says something.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You due understand Sava, that so far all of your opposition to this deal is based off of logic places you square in the "redneck" camp of whcih Oeridn alluded to in the OP.

Thre are two, and only two, reasons to oppose this deal. You don't like the idea of an Arab company making money from our ports because it is Arab, or you just don't want any company but an American one making money off of them, in which case your are an economic protectionist.

Both are stupid viewpoints.

I believe there is a third which you have over looked. Some people do honestly believe that ports, like airports, freeways, canals, and other infastructure would be better off under public ownership then under private ownership. You may disagree with that position but please at least admite that it is a viable third reason why some people would oppose such deals. In fact Sen. Feinstein has been making such an argument for public ownership for almost 4 years now.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I believe there is a third which you have over looked. Some people do honestly believe that ports, like airports, freeways, canals, and other infastructure would be better off under public ownership then under private ownership. You may disagree with that position but please at least admite that it is a viable third reason why some people would oppose such deals. In fact Sen. Feinstein has been making such an argument for public ownership for almost 4 years now.

I would say this is the second most important thing I am thinking about.

I'd rather the government take responsibility for port security, and other such things you mentioned.

If you want the cheapest, lowest quality, worst trained, $8 an hour security guards... then leave it to a private company.

oh but wait, I'm just an anti-arab racist

[The Emperor Fabulous]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports (AS WELL AS 16 OTHERS!!!). The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.

"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowry, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.

Well, as long as me, Sava, and Oerdin are as stupid as the US Coast Guard...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
DD, I've been nice enough to start a decent thread and to behaive intellectually honest so please don't post junk from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

I know not nor do I particularly care about the source of your beef with the source of the snippet I posted. The point was to show that the UAE or DP World aren't al Qaeda run subsidiaries as Sava and TEF are alleging.

Some people do honestly believe that ports, like airports, freeways, canals, and other infastructure would be better off under public ownership then under private ownership.

It's more than a little suspect that the people trying to stake out such a position are coming out of the woodwork now and not when the Brits took over the ports in question or any of the other foreign companies. The outrage seems manufactured because of the filthy Arabs in question.

More info: http://www.time.com/time/nation/prin...161466,00.html

In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Pardon me, but I never said the UAE group was owned/operated by Osama bin Laden. Please don't put text into my fingers.

However, I will back up my position that these ports should always have been run by Americans. The reason I never thought about it before was because I didn't know about it before, and you can't blame me for that since I don't routinely check which countries operate our ports at any given time (sorry, I always assumed they were under American control.)

This is, honestly, to me, like giving control of the borders to Mexico. Yeah, they might do great, but there's always the possibility that one of their numbers might choose to let illegals pass through. And since the border is our biggest concern with Mexico, we would never let them have that control. Of course, the biggest threat to American ports is Islamic fundamentalists, but of course I'm racist for suggesting THAT possibility.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
no foreign company would be acceptable to me

why can't AMERICANS defend AMERICAN ports?

good question

[DaShi]

Bush needs this. Dubai will help guarantee that there is a massive terrorist attack in 2008. Then he can declare martial law and rule indefinitely. Everything in his presidency has been leading up to this result.