Both good and bad.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi
Dubai will help guarantee that there is a massive terrorist attack in 2008.

1) In December 2004, Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the U.S. Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America.

2) In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology.

3) In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

These hardly seem like the actions of a terror-sponsoring state.

[DaShi]

Which makes them all the more suspicious.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) In December 2004, Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the U.S. Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America.

2) In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology.

3) In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

These hardly seem like the actions of a terror-sponsoring state.

Iran signed the NPT.

[DinoDoc]

I wasn't aware that we were discussing Iran.

[DaShi]

He means that passing laws or signing agreements don't necessarily mean that they will be enforced. Like Chinese environment laws.

[Dinner]

As I stated before I do believe most of the opposition is based upon anti-Arab feelings. That said I objected to the claim that everyone who opposed the deal was either a racist or a xenophobe. I wanted to point out that there were other possibilities even if I find it unlikely that the majority of people opposing the deal were actually thinking along those lines.

In any event I doubt this is going to matter. True to form Bush is already negotiating the terms of his surrender on this issue. Bush is as much responsible for the anti-Arab hysteria as anyone (if not more) currently going on so it is slightly poetic that he now feels part of its force. I do think the UAE could do a good job running ports though I dislike that it is a state owned company and that they would never allow a US company to do the same (or own oil wells in the UAE). Unfortunately, the financial mess our leaders have put us in makes it impossible for us to push for equal access.

[Patroklos]

Your third option, while interesting to discuss and think about, is not an option at all really.

There is no lawmaker on any side saying that we should nationalize ports. This is about buisness practices.

There is also no evidence that this company has any connection with terrorists. There is no evidnece that it has any security problems at all. There is no evidence that it has any black marks in any relevant category.

It in fact has already passed the security examination all foriegn companies go through, and just because it is the less rigorous of the two does not mean it was not detailed.

Of note, this company operates within all our major ally's port facility without any such problems that we attribute to it. In point of fact, the firm is no stranger to America's shipping lanes and terminals, again with no such problems attirbuted to it.

There is only one difference between this company any any other that runs it, and the fact that it is Arab.

This has got to be the most retarded troll Democrats have ever made, race bating based on not even a kernel of truth.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

And this has got to be the most fool-hardy the Repukes on this board have ever been on National Security. Bush says this is good, so Repukes think this is good. But think about this: 1.) What if Bush was doing this in 2002. 2.) What if Kerry was pres and doing this - you all would have your panties in a twist like we do now. Of course...we also have moderate republicans on our side.

And I still would be against it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
But think about this: 1.) What if Bush was doing this in 2002.

All things being equal given the fact DP World is operating ports in US ally countries without your hysterical predictions of al Qaeda operations coming to fruition, I fail to see why I would have any substantive problem.

2.) What if Kerry was pres and doing this - you all would have your panties in a twist like we do now.

Can you at least do us the courtesy of not projecting your tacit approval of election year race baiting on to your opponents?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I fully believe that this would be a Kerry issue if he were president. I also hope that just as many non-partisans would have an issue with it. I would still have an issue with it.

If the US Coast Guard has a security problem with this deal, then I have a security problem with this deal. Especially since I live near one of the ports.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do think it'll be amusing when this is denied and then some other private company comes in and takes over the port contract. Then someone will have to explain how it is less safe for a company who is owned by UAE to be involved in running ports than a company owned by the PRC.

[Ted Striker]

Once again I agree with Oerdin's analysis


This anti Arab crap is completely disgusting

We do ALOT of business with the UAE, and the world's second spaceport is going to be built there.

http://www.spaceadventures.com/media/releases/2006-02/347

The third spaceport is going to be in Singapore:

http://www.spaceadventures.com/media/releases/2006-02/348

FINALLY the global space revolution is beginning.

This will be the start of the next global economic boom that will make the dot com boom look like chump change

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
If the US Coast Guard has a security problem with this deal, then I have a security problem with this deal. Especially since I live near one of the ports.

Your opinion doesn't seem to be shared by many in the industry.

Shipping Industry: Little Threat to National Security in Port Deal

Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - A state-owned Arab company's foray into the American maritime business has been labeled in Washington, D.C., as a terrorism risk and a virtual takeover of key U.S. ports.

But the deal by Dubai Ports World to take over operations in 28 American ports is being viewed very differently by many shipping industry participants and some security experts. They say a change of ownership in the company that runs docks and warehouses won't compromise national security.

It won't change who works on the docks or what they do, they point out, nor will it change security procedures, which are overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service and armed port authority police. The ports themselves are government-owned, usually by states or cities.

If anything, those in the business say, the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of P&O Ports is just the latest chapter in a long history of consolidation in the maritime industry. P&O itself is rooted in a 169-year-old British-owned company that only got into the American port management business within the last 10 years.

"There has been a lot of hyperventilated rhetoric," said Bill McLaughlin, a spokesman for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, one of six U.S. ports to host a P&O terminal. The others are New York, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami and Newark, N.J.

"It seemed like there is too much of a big deal being made of (the Dubai deal)," agreed Sean Duffy, general manager of the New Orleans-based Steamship Association of Louisiana, a trade group for maritime companies. "I don't see it as potential security breach."

The transaction by Dubai Ports, a business owned by the United Arab Emirates, set off a furor among key Washington lawmakers, who threatened to pass legislation to block the sale of P&O, which manages terminals in six major ports and loads and unloads ships in another 22.

The port of New Orleans, which has largely recovered from Hurricane Katrina, illustrates the role P&O, and thus Dubai, plays in the international business of shipping.

Its public docks specialize in "general cargo" - everything from coils of steel to bags of coffee to containers stuffed with liquor or electronics. And as at most major ports, unionized longshoremen work the waterfront.

P&O bought up several existing companies, including Transocean Terminal Operators (TTO) and today moves about 55 percent of New Orleans' general cargo.

"People working on our docks for P&O were the same as those working for TTO, and will be the same for the next company," said Dave Wagner, chief operating officer for the port of New Orleans. "They are all Americans."

P&O and other terminal operators play a role in port security, but it's relatively small, Wagner said and in his view, the ownership or nationality of the terminal operator is "not really a relevant issue."

The primary security role of the operator involves checking trucks and trains that enter and exit the terminal, Wagner said. In some ports, they also sometimes participate in submitting general port security plans to the Coast Guard.

But the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customers Service and Border Patrol are responsible for the security surrounding ships and the cargo they carry.

At New Orleans and many other ports, armed port authority police officers guard entrances leading to the hive of terminals and docks.

Ten years ago in New Orleans, anyone could easily walk through one of those entrances and amble onto dock for a close-up view of longshoremen at work. That's nearly impossible today.

Some experts said that the biggest maritime security threat isn't at the dock but at factories and warehouses that could be located thousands of miles away. That is where the metal cargo containers being shipped to the United States are loaded and locked before being shipped across the ocean.

"The real issue is not so much what comes into the country, but where it starts," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser on national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Security concerns shouldn't be an issue in the Dubai deal, he said, because terminal operators like P&O and Dubai are relative bit players in port operation. And whether owned by Americans, Europeans or Arabs, "It doesn't make any difference," he said.

Ullman said politicians are responding to the post-Sept. 11 fears of their constituents, which are "understandable but emotional." Still, a lot of the criticism has been hyperbolic, he said, implying that U.S. ports were being taken over.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration was slow to respond to the issue, he said. "You know this is going to be explosive. You don't have to be a political genius to understand it."

[The Emperor Fabulous]

OK DD, I'll listen to a trade group representative instead of the US Coast Guard.

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
OK DD, I'll listen to a trade group representative instead of the US Coast Guard.

Listen, the company has interests all over the world and I really haven't been able to find any credible (or otherwise) allegations of the sort you are alleging coming from either Germany or Australia (two countries where they opperate). What is it about the Germans and Aussies that makes them safe from this threatening company and leaves us vulnerable?