Arab company to take over US Ports
 

You may have already heard about this. Management of ports in major US cities, including NYC, NOLA, Miami and Baltimore were put up to bid.

The winning bidder? Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates, the home base for some of the terrorists involved in 9/11. In fact, while they are technically our ally, the UAE recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate political party and financial partner.

President Bush thinks this is a very good idea, and is defending it while most members from both parties in congress are trying to convince him it's a BAD idea.

Council on Foreign Relations Link

What do you think? Is "The Sum of all Fears" coming true? I think it's bad news and if anybody wonders where the next attack will be, watch the ports.

Any international finance majors here? I'm interested in the best non-US$ currency for future investments. Also looking for island residence approx ~11K miles from either US coast. Homes with deep basements preferred. /sarcasm

I understand economic motivations but this raises many fears. (sigh)

Your title is misleading. Is Saudi Arabia taking over or United Arab Emirates? Very different countries.

You are correct, well, other than they're right next to each other and speak the same language. I meant to just put Arabs but my brain had other things in mind.

I think this is kinda whacky. Definitely the sort of thing that should be managed by your own country (or at least, domestic corporations).

This will turn into another Harriet Meyers... just wait.

The odd thing is that before this, they weren't domestically managed. They were run by a British firm. Fortunately the only terror England exports is their food.

nevermind i'm slow in getting it.

I think when making up a pro/con list for outsourcing, this decision should definitely be in the "con" column.

It's Dubai... have you read about Dubai? The UAE has some *very* different ideas about what it is to be Muslim/arabic. The only reason (I can gather) that they recognize the Taliban is so they won't come storming into their designer islands and upset the millionares who have built mansions there....

I, for one, am not worried. It, in some ways, could herald a new era of cooperation between the US and Arab countries... perhaps be a great show of faith in each other. Who knows?

Yeah...UAE is hardly someone to be worried about IMO.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...rts_letter.pdf

Sorry, can't cut and paste the thing. There is enough here to question this decision, partisan politics or not.

I have few issues with Dubai...but, dont we have an issue with Jobs in this country?

I admit that I haven't gotten a handle on all of the aspects of this yet, but I'd like to raise a few points.

From what I can tell, P&O is/was a British company.

- I think that weakens the whole "avoiding foreign control of our ports argument" considerably. In fact, it sort of makes it look racist, as in "avoid (scary arabic) foreign control of our ports". The congressional request at least cites issues specific to the UAE. The only part of that particular issue that would raise my concern is that DPW is essentially controlled by the same family that controls the UAE, meaning that it could be used in an expression of political power.

- If P&O is a British company, what can Bush do about it? Does the US have any authority to not approve of an acquisition of a foreign company? Granted, we could change the port contract, but that doesn't seem to be what people are asking about. Even if the port contract was taken from P&O/DPW, who would it go to?

According to what I heard on CNN last night, the security aspect of port operation will be overseen by the Dept. of Homeland Security - as it is now, and as it would be no matter which company had the ports contract. Given that the security of ports (especially regarding receiving) is dismal at best, and that there is no real plan to change that, what difference does this make?

While watching CNN last night, I saw James Carville, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton (through a written statement) all say that this is probably ok and that the Bush administration has probably exercised their due diligence. From what they said, the situation just doesn't LOOK good - but there's no hard evidence of impropriety.

If I've misunderstood or misrepresented the claims in this case, please let me know.

I don't think it would be an issue of jobs in America. The ports would be staffed by Americans but the company that manages them would be from the UAE.

Think of this like Nike owning Nike but hiring Chinese to manufacture. As for as China cares, Nike is supplying jobs to Chinese. Who owns the company is besides the point.

I suppose we could get Halliburton to do the job... :lol:



Ubertuber, I agree that there is an undercurrent of "racism" in these statements but I think it is tuly the optics of the whole thing. Given the fact that the ports are seen to be one of soft underbellies of America, where they are most vulnerable to attack, it just seems odd that the management of these ports should be held by *any* foreign national (British or otherwise).

In the end though, I suspect it matters very little who owns the corporation that runs the ports.

They're taking over our company! Thats the only bit i'm bummed about, another British company letting itself get taken over from international sources. We won't have any home owned left at this rate.

If it was from another other middle eastern country, i would raise an eyebrow, but the UAE are generally nice blokes, even if the crown prince is on a bit of a power trip with his islands right now.

Uber also gave the best reason FOR this decision, to forge stronger ties with an Arab nation. Which is hard to argue against.

As far as the shadowy racism implied in this uproar is concerned, I didn't know a British company managed the ports until I started researching the UAE takeover. I don't find it anymore comforting than if the UAE takes them over. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that I think that government management of the ports by say, TSA, would lessen the chance of a bribe convincing a person in high places to look the other way.

Is it completely rational? No. </rumsfeld> It's fairly common knowledge that Homeland Security has basically turned a blind eye to port operations. But after 9/11, I think we're allowed at a juncture lilke this, where we're really becoming educated on how our ports are operated, to seriously scrutinize what's going on, and if need be, take over operations.

Now Bill Frist will introduce legislation to block this deal. When the Republican Senate leader (along with a bunch of other Republicans and Dems) says he will do something like this, you know even the most ardent of Bush's supporters has to question the decision.

The issue is this: we have two allies -- the UAE and Saudi Arabia -- whose citizens were among those on the 9/11 jets. So obviously there is sympathy for anti-U.S./terrorist action in those countries. And, I have read, contributions from well-heeled members of the population go directly to Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations.

So the question is, in mathematical terms: where does the set of UAE citizens who sympathize with terrorism overlap the set of citizens who work in, or manage, the UAE-owned port management company. This is an issue that should be studied and discussed, not rammed through with a "trust me" from the president.

I heard Bush make some kind of complaint that it was all about fairness: if we'd let the "Great British" (his term) manage the ports, it would be unfair to discriminate against another ally, the UAE, who wanted the work. The point he misses, of course, is that one can argue that the upper classes of the UAE and thus of the port management company may harbor significant numbers of terrorist sympathizers. This is much less likely with the British. I think :-).

ALert the media. I agree with Bush. Sort of. It's not that the sun shines out from under their caftans or anything. It's that it doesn't make any difference if an Arab company (as in Arabian Peninsula) controls a port terminal. What makes a difference is whether or not there is enough security in place so that an Arab NGO of decidedly hostile intent can't pack a container full of plastique and nuclear waste and make Philly the wasteland it looks like from the highway. That, of course, is where the resident and I part ways, I would like to get enough security in the ports to check out all the containers as they're offloaded at a minuimum. He would like the problem to go away by itself.

I think this is just congress making noise to direct people's eyes away from their ethical problems.

I'd like to believe that, I really would. But I don't think they're going to hire Americans over their own people or more Americans than Arabs. This is yet to see, but if even a small portion of security jobs are allocated to Arab security workers based in the UAE. They could easily crony their way into giving jobs of importance to their own staff [this is leading to something]. While not questioning the Arab's work experience, there is significant proof their country has Al-Queda followers [which were home to two of the hijackers who destroyed the WTCs]. Don't be so naive like Rumsfield - The Coast Guard is in charge of security not the corporation. My ass! Al-Queda was NOT in charge of airport security and they still BYPASSED.

Listen to Rumsfield again, and you'll be fucked twice. That whole administration should've been torn apart. Fuckin' Republicans, a dictatorship in itself.

This is like classic cloak-n-dagger. Masquerade as a security worker and turn the other cheek to certain shipments either passed down as a direct order by the supervisors or whoever the chain of command is. The government has yet to fully investigate the broader security avenues of any practices/policies in place. The DHS is a joke! A lot of you think they are going to protect us in this area, and you are so wrong. Chertoff can promise "safeguards are in place" all he wants, it doesn't do a damn thing to convince me.

I'm not fuckin' waiting for: Oh shit, we were wrong! AGAIN!

Fuck that, time to take action now. Apologies later. They can be sensitive some other time. It's not like this "deal" is going to turn the middle east peaceful overnight - not in any of our lifetimes. And I don't want to hear: "And it never will with that attitude". You can't change the middle east's sentiment about the US no matter how hard you try. Children are taught there from whenever they are able to first speak about why America is bad.

Off-topic:
And, damn right we are. We're a cesspool of rapes, murders, general violence, robberies, extortion, civil injustice, exploiting our women in multiple degrees [from big booty video hoes prancing around in thongs to Victoria Secret commercials, (forced) prostitution, strippers, pornstars, brothels, transvestites, child pornography, beastiality, this category is endless], MAJOR cesspool of drugs, the ideology of homosexuality if not more importantly abortion, the right to sell and bear arms, to disrespect your family, to not uphold any values [adultery], to stereotype many races, atheism, materialism, greed, vanity [useless plastic surgery - boob jobs, tummy tucks, etc], we feed countries weapons and watch them fight or invade each other. This is not to say the middle east is perfect [stoning their woman for seemingly petty things, using scalding items on their tongues to see if they are innocent or guilty of a sin/crime, suicide bombings, torture, suborndination, oppression, hunger, mass poverty equating a poor economy].

It is simply a part of the world that will not bend to America no matter how much good it spreads. Look at Russia, Cuba, South America, China and parts of Africa, still all the same - still rural, primitive in nature. Still all corrupt and brutal. All guilty of multiple restrictions on civil liberties. But we have to fuck with the middle east? I wish in a perfect world everybody was like Japan - few incidents in any above mentioned categories and still run like a finely tuned, socially/lawfully obedient functioning machine. And they have an economy, much less a society, to be proud of.

In the end, being a undeveloped country, is not such a bad thing. The simplistic way of life leaves a lot to be cherished.

This issue rests on distrust of Arabs, plain and simple. Until I see evidence that this firm cannot be trusted to manage American ports, I see no reason why it shouldn't. We do not allow profiling at airports but somehow it's okay to stop an Arab company from doing business for no other reason that it is owned by Arabs? What a bunch of rubbish.

While no one is saying it in terms that are easy to identify... I think you've nailed it.

James Carville (Democratic strategist and good buddy of Bill Clinton) told Wolf Blitzer yesterday that while the situation is a little unclear (lots of vague objections and not too many concrete problems), the politics are simple.

This is a good issue for Democrats to attack the whitehouse on, because they can paint Bush into a corner for how an arabic firm controlling a national security interest LOOKS, while Bush can't do too much because (thus far) there isn't much to find.

Meanwhile, republicans can score points before an interim election because they "stood up" to the president (which will help when running against Dems who want to claim the same thing).

So basically, the situation is almost a "perfect storm" for the Bush administration - and in some part because they're sort of stuck with their decision unless they find some glaring problem, which will look horrible since they didn't find it before...

AKA, look for a dogpile.

i guess there is a price on our freedom afterall.

You know when bush started getting flack at the beginning, i gave him the benefit of the doubt. Yeah he made some mistakes, who hasnt, but i felt like people were just LOOKING for things wrong with him. And if you look for something hard enough you are gonna find it, no matter if its true or not.
I felt bad for the guy to be honest. But jesus christ, how many things does this guy gotta do. Its getting insane. This man just isnt a good leader... and honestly i feel bad and less of an american saying that. How terrible is it that our own country cannot support its leader. We are becoming a joke.


quote:
This issue rests on distrust of Arabs, plain and simple. Until I see evidence that this firm cannot be trusted to manage American ports, I see no reason why it shouldn't

what kind of evidence do you want? more buildings blown up? people dying? then we will go oooops and close them?
The facts stand that we have conflicts with arab nations. The fact stands that people of arab descent were responsible for many terrorist acts around the world. Why give them a chance.
Are you gonna hire a reformed pedophile to babysit your kids... and wait until theres evidence of abuse before you fire him?

What I find odd is some of the people who are bitching the most about this in the press.....

Are the same ones who complain about racial profiling..........


Hmmmm? :confused:

EXACTLY.
The ONLY reason this is an issue is because the company is owned by an ARAB/Muslim country. There is no evidence that this company, its leadership, or its workers are terrorists. Well, unless you count as evidence the fact that they are Arabs and Muslims; and that, my dear friends, is the worst kind of ethnic/religious discrimination I can think of. (Actually, killing Christians because some cartoons upset your day is alot worse, but I won't go there).

Actually, the only Arabic nation we've got a conflict with is Syria, and even that is extremely low grade. In the other cases, we've got conflicts with people who live in arabic countries. Also, there are a lot of different countries in the middle east - not all of them are populated by arabic people and they have a wide variety of economic, political, and social freedoms. Using words like "people of arab descent" and "why give them a chance" makes it sound like you fail to recognize that there is a difference between the peoples of these many countries... As for the rest of your post, this forum has been down the path of inflammatory comparisons before... There is a difference between a company based in the UAE and pedophiles.

I wonder if these ports might not be the safest in our country if the UAE company runs them. With all the bad publicity they can't afford to let anything slip through hidden in the cargo.

Forget selling the ports to an Arab nation, how about selling America out to foreign nations period? Personally I would be mad if these were going to Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, or any other country. Why are we selling America to the highest bidder (is it even the highest bidder)? This isn't only happening with ports, currently many of our roads are being sold to a Spanish/Australian company in Texas and Indiana as well as other states.

Is this due to our trade deficits and national debt? Do other countries now get to dictate our policys more so than American citizens?

Focus on the real issue of our government selling our sovereignty, not only whether or not they have instances of funding terrorism.

A british firm (P&O) got bought out by Dubai Ports World, a UAE firm. America is not "selling the ports to an arab nation." Furthermore, DPW is going to be the manager of the ports, while port security remains in the hands of US officials. Nothing in the security changes. DHS is still in charge. The same union port workers will continue to work there. DPW isn't going to fire them all and import arab workers. Actually I think the interesting thing is going to be how DPW deals with the unions in US ports, could be something to watch.

I haven't seen panties in a bunch like this since cheney shot that lawyer.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would make this point, but I didn't have the energy to write it myself.

Bush could get some additional support for this port deal if only he could get the company execs to stage violent protests--burn several embassies and Christian churches; murder some children and Priests, and threaten a real holocaust against infidels-- you know, the normal aggrieved victim stuff. Hell, if the President played it right, he might even get Kofi Annan on his side.

I have no problem with-and, in fact, I can actualy get behind-what the President is saying here. Well...except for the "Great British" part. :rolleyes:

However...I do believe that American ports should be managed by American interests. Talk about outsourcing. Sheeesh.

edit
I wonder....does a Mediocre UAE company equal a Great British one?
Sorry...couldn't resist. :rolleyes:

geez--i almost agree with george w bush on something. this has not happened. i do not see this as a big deal. then again, i see nationalism as a kind of collective mental disorder, so some that basis for objection seems to me meaningless.
besides, stock has traded internationally for a long long time now---ownership is almost never national. the idea of a "british" or "american" corporation has been largely outmoded for 40 years.

here's a good story http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ortreax22.html
Roach always talks of the conservative viewpoint reflecting racism. Not that opposing the DPW/P&O is a conservative viewpoint, but it definitley smells of islamophobia. The politicians opposing this are democrats opposing bush and republicans trying to look good for november. The thing is, bush is making the right decision here, even roach agrees.

There have been a lot of good points for this, along with the occasional charge of racism. I would like to re-state my original feeling that we do not need to let any foreign entity control our ports. This is the kind of thing we have governments for.

The latest news is that Bush himself was unaware that the British controlled our ports. This is a backlash he didn't expect and is now defending.

Oh please, all this "outrage" about outsourcing our ports is bullshit. Where was the concern when those silly Brits got the contract for controlling the ports? Saying you are opposed to this because it's outsourcing is a very pathetic cover for saying you don't want this to go through because it's an Arab business.

Hell, Japan runs cargo terminals in the US, and they BOMBED Pearl Harbor. Their government bombed us! Not two citizens, it was their fucking navy. Shouldn't we ban those fuckers from having any business interests in the US?

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best thing Bush has done since being in office.

This is spot on. It would be extremely idiotic to deny the port deal.

Outrage is rarely rational, be it the original stuff or the reactions.

US Country took over Arab State
 

Have we lost all perspective? We live in a world where countries are being invaded and innocent people are dying for the greed of the rich, and we're worried about competing greed? Shouldn't we be trying to stop our own greed before going after someone elses?

This is a distraction, pure and simple. There are very important things going on, and we're worried about the free market econemy we FORCE on people. This is what we get for not only introducin free market econemy, but corporatism. I hope that they can get some decent income from our ports to build the strength of the Arab econemies.

I had the impression also that Dubai is pretty much an economic miracle. They even sell it as a holiday destination. I'd heard positive stuff about them in the business pages.

I suppose that Dubai must be in UAE right. I'm going to have to do some reading - just to be sure.

It's probably not a good thing to treat all arabs the same.

i'd love to visit dubai.

anyway, i can't believe opposition to this deal is getting "strong bipartisan support" in Congress. with so many other issues demanding their attention, they take a stand on this. no wonder their approval rating is so low.

are we afraid of anything Arab? Arab ownership of something here is hardly a threat. if anything, the commotion surrounding this issue is just shifting focus away from more pressing security/domestic issues.