Arab company to take over US Ports - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Poppinjay · 02-20-2006, 11:21 AM

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.

cyrnel · 02-20-2006, 11:35 AM

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)

Charlatan · 02-20-2006, 11:39 AM

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

Poppinjay · 02-20-2006, 11:43 AM

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.

highthief · 02-20-2006, 11:58 AM

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

Charlatan · 02-20-2006, 12:21 PM

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

Poppinjay · 02-20-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

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

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.

msh58 · 02-20-2006, 12:42 PM

nevermind i'm slow in getting it.

JumpinJesus · 02-20-2006, 03:45 PM

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

Sage · 02-20-2006, 11:19 PM

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?

SecretMethod70 · 02-20-2006, 11:28 PM

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

highthief · 02-21-2006, 04:48 AM

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.

tecoyah · 02-21-2006, 05:01 AM

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

ubertuber · 02-21-2006, 05:37 AM

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.

Charlatan · 02-21-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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

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...

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.

stevie667 · 02-21-2006, 06:34 AM

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.

Poppinjay · 02-21-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

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.

highthief · 02-21-2006, 03:54 PM

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.

Rodney · 02-21-2006, 04:25 PM

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 :-).

Tophat665 · 02-21-2006, 05:15 PM

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.

oldtimer · 02-21-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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'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.

Aladdin Sane · 02-21-2006, 09:37 PM

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.

ubertuber · 02-21-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

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.

barenakedladies · 02-22-2006, 06:33 AM

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?

Ustwo · 02-22-2006, 06:36 AM

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?

Aladdin Sane · 02-22-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

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).

ubertuber · 02-22-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

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?

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.

flstf · 02-22-2006, 07:12 AM

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.

samcol · 02-22-2006, 07:17 AM

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.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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.

Aladdin Sane · 02-22-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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.

Bill O'Rights · 02-22-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward. I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

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.

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.

roachboy · 02-22-2006, 10:22 AM

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.

stevo · 02-22-2006, 02:59 PM

here's a good story http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ortreax22.html

Quote:

To Arabs, port-deal backlash looks like bias
By Jim Krane

The Associated Press

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – To many in this booming financial center, the American backlash over Dubai running U.S. ports boils down to something simple — and ugly: "This is Arab-phobia," says one Arab security analyst. "I can see no other reason behind it."

As the U.S. secretary of state heads here for talks, many Arabs go further, saying the very basis of American policy toward the Middle East may be at stake: If the United States can't work with a moderate, friendly and socially liberal Arab ally like Dubai, it may not be able to work with any Arabs at all.

"If the American politicians were smart, they would hold Dubai up as a role model," said Abdul Khaleq Abdulla, a political scientist at Emirates University. "Punishing us sends the wrong message."

President Bush said basically the same Tuesday, threatening to veto legislation aimed at blocking the port deal.

"This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," Bush said.

Among other things, the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is one part, allows the United States to base U.S. Air Force spy planes and refueling flights here and allows U.S. warships to visit. It also has handed over to the United States terrorism suspects arrested on its territory, including the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing in Yemen.

Nevertheless, U.S. lawmakers still pledged to try to head off the deal. They allege Dubai has been a financial and operations base for terrorists and say that means state-owned Dubai Ports World should be blocked from its $6.8 million purchase of Britain's Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which now operates six U.S. ports.

Two of the 19 hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were from the United Arab Emirates. Eleven of the hijackers — all Saudis — entered the U.S. on flights from Dubai, a common way for a person to travel from Saudi Arabia to the United States. All the Saudis had been issued U.S. visas by American officials.

U.S. government reports also have said that Dubai, a freewheeling banking hub that operates the Mideast's busiest airport, served as a transit and money transfer center for al-Qaida. The city's port also was used by a Pakistani nuclear engineer to ship uranium enrichment equipment to Libya.

Yet people here point out that the country has created a joint task force with the United States that investigates terror funding and nuclear proliferation. Many believe U.S. lawmakers are unfairly tarring the country for the behavior of two citizens, and note that free-market banks and free ports — including those in the United States — are not always successful in preventing rogue transactions.

Above all, many say the tone of U.S. critics has shocked them: Dubai styles itself as a Mideast Switzerland, steering clear of conflict and focusing on business.

"We don't like the tone of this," Abdulla said. "Many of us see a hint of racism there, disguised as security concern."

U.S.-based private intelligence firm Stratfor noted that "the government of the UAE is about as pro-American as you can get" in the region. "If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world," it said.

Stratfor also said "a British company previously was managing the (American) ports, and there are plenty of jihadists traveling on British passports these days who are at least as dangerous as anyone in the UAE."

The Emirates foreign minister thanked Bush for his support, saying he was relieved the president had spoken out forcefully. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is certain to face tough questions when she arrives for talks Thursday.

Rejecting the deal would not only tarnish relations between the UAE and Washington, but also set the wider Arab world — including other moderate allies like Jordan — on edge, said Mustafa Alani, a security analyst with the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

He called the opposition to the deal "Arab-phobia, Islamophobia ... I can see no other reason behind it."

Alani and others said the deal makes sense from economic, strategic and security standpoints, and comes with plenty of precedent in the global cargo industry, where major U.S. terminals are already run by companies from Britain, Japan and Denmark. He noted the UAE and United States are also in the midst of negotiating a free trade pact.

Dubai has emerged in recent years as the Perisan Gulf's most glittering city, a cosmopolitan tourist destination for Britons, other Europeans, Asians and Arabs alike. It is best known for building resort islands shaped like palm trees and the construction of what is expected to be the world's tallest skyscraper, but it has also diversified into a major banking center.

Arab investors who pulled their capital out of the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks — fearing asset seizures under the Patriot Act — want to reinvest, Alani said. But anti-Arab sentiment in Congress will push those funds to friendlier markets in Asia and Europe.

"This is a major long-term investment," Alani said. "If it's going to be undermined for unjustified reasons, that will tell Arab investors and governments to keep away from the United States."

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.

Poppinjay · 02-22-2006, 03:44 PM

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.

Carno · 02-22-2006, 04:29 PM

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.

Quote:

As the U.S. secretary of state heads here for talks, many Arabs go further, saying the very basis of American policy toward the Middle East may be at stake: If the United States can't work with a moderate, friendly and socially liberal Arab ally like Dubai, it may not be able to work with any Arabs at all.

"If the American politicians were smart, they would hold Dubai up as a role model," said Abdul Khaleq Abdulla, a political scientist at Emirates University. "Punishing us sends the wrong message."

President Bush said basically the same Tuesday, threatening to veto legislation aimed at blocking the port deal.

"This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," Bush said.

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

cyrnel · 02-22-2006, 04:46 PM

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

Willravel · 02-22-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

'Precise fashion'

"This conflict has been prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare", he said.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.

They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

'Conservative assumptions'

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

He said his team's work proved it was possible to compile data on public health "even during periods of extreme violence".

The sample included randomly selected households in Baghdad, Basra, Arbil, Najaf and Karbala, as well as Falluja.

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."

Mr Horton concluded: "For the sake of a country in crisis and for a people under daily threat of violence, the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts."

No official estimate

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians who have died since the outbreak of the war in Iraq.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths, giving the impression that ordinary Iraqis' lives are worth less than those of their soldiers for whom detailed statistics are available.

However, the Pentagon spokesman said "there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties by this or any other organisation".

He added: The loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something Iraqi security forces and the Multi-National Force painstakingly work to avoid.

"Former regime elements and insurgents have made it a practice of using civilians as human shields, operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."

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.

Nimetic · 02-22-2006, 05:51 PM

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.

trickyy · 02-22-2006, 06:18 PM

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.

02-20-2006, 11:21 AM	#1 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-20-2006, 11:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	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) __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

02-20-2006, 11:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Your title is misleading. Is Saudi Arabia taking over or United Arab Emirates? Very different countries. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-20-2006, 11:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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 the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-20-2006, 11:58 AM	#5 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I think this is kinda whacky. Definitely the sort of thing that should be managed by your own country (or at least, domestic corporations). __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-20-2006, 12:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This will turn into another Harriet Meyers... just wait. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-20-2006, 12:42 PM	#8 (permalink)
msh58 Crazy	nevermind i'm slow in getting it. Last edited by msh58; 02-20-2006 at 12:48 PM..

02-20-2006, 03:45 PM	#9 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I think when making up a pro/con list for outsourcing, this decision should definitely be in the "con" column. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-20-2006, 11:19 PM	#10 (permalink)
Sage hoarding all the big girl panties since 2005 Location: North side	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? __________________ Sage knows our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's She answers hard acrostics, has a pretty taste for paradox She quotes in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus In conics she can floor peculiarities parabolous -C'hi

02-20-2006, 11:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Yeah...UAE is hardly someone to be worried about IMO. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-21-2006, 04:48 AM	#12 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	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. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-21-2006, 05:01 AM	#13 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I have few issues with Dubai...but, dont we have an issue with Jobs in this country? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-21-2006, 05:37 AM	#14 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

02-21-2006, 06:34 AM	#16 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	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. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

02-21-2006, 03:54 PM	#18 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	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. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-21-2006, 04:25 PM	#19 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	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 :-).

02-21-2006, 05:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	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. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-21-2006, 09:37 PM	#22 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	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. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

02-22-2006, 06:33 AM	#24 (permalink)
barenakedladies Crazy Location: anytown, USA	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? __________________ signature smignature Last edited by ubertuber; 02-22-2006 at 07:01 AM..

02-22-2006, 06:36 AM	#25 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	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? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-22-2006, 07:12 AM	#28 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	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.

02-22-2006, 07:17 AM	#29 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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.

02-22-2006, 10:22 AM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-22-2006, 03:44 PM	#35 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-22-2006, 04:46 PM	#37 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Outrage is rarely rational, be it the original stuff or the reactions. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

02-22-2006, 05:51 PM	#39 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	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.

02-22-2006, 06:18 PM	#40 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.