Port Nonsense
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


IMPORTANT CUSTOMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

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

There is no war on terror. There is a war on Islam. After all, America invaded Iraq only because something might happen. Because it was them and not us over there. If called a 'Crusade', then you have posted more accurately. If it was a war justified by a smoking gun, then we would be rebuilding Afghanistan and chasing bin Laden. But it is not a "war on terror". There was no terrorism coming out of Iraq. It was coming out of Afghanistan. If Timothy McVey was Islamic, then that too would have been Arabic terrorism - even though McVey bombed for completely different reasons. Don't fall for hype promoted by propaganda: "war on terror". The justified war is with an organization that we offended - Muslim Brotherhood (not to be confused with a related political party of the same name). In particular - bin Laden who we are make virtually no effort to attack, kill, or capture. An organization that would have completely ignored Americans to instead attack their original enemies - Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, the King of Jordan, the Saudi Royal family, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile I am appalled that some here fell for this obvious Rush Limbaugh type propaganda: Using that same reasoning, then America is also a terrorist nation. It’s called containers. They also pass through the US with nothing more than paperwork to inspect.

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

Jesus. I was afraid the might happen someday. I agree with tw on this...

I'm surprised the universe didn't implode.

Every opposition voice I have heard has tried a range of words to say the same thing: "I am a racist. I believe fanning the fires of xenophobia will bring me a net gain of influence/votes/anti-bush-cred/whatever." All because of the word "Arab" in the name. NOTHING more.

Nah, Tonchi was just being pragmatic. From a self congratulatory site on the Dubai royal family

Dubai, which was part of what was known as the Coast of Oman from the early part of the 18th century, was recorded as a settlement from the Middle Ages and in early Arabic history. During this period, the village was ruled by the ancestors of the present-day Al Maktoum family, a faction of the Bani Yas federation which also ruled Abu Dhabi. Since 1833 the reigning Al Maktoum family has ruled Dubai.

In later years, Sheikh Rashid actively promoted his sons, all modernizers like their father, to prominent positions in the government of Dubai and, after 1971, the federal UAE government. Sheikh Maktoum was appointed Chairman of the key Land's Department; Sheikh Hamdan, Head of Dubai Municipality; and Sheikh Mohammed, having completed his military training in Britain, Head of the Police and Public Security Department.

It is under the wise and progressive leadership of the Al Maktoum family that Dubai has prospered and is now the business and tourism hub for a region that stretches from Egypt to the Indian sub-continent and from South Africa to the CIS countries.

Well, I never dreamed that I might be one day called a Rush Limbaugh syncophant. The quote I gave above was from a letter written by several members of Congress (including Dodd, Shays, Foley, Schumer, etc.) using the Congressional Research Service as their source. Whatever.

As a matter of fact, I DO consider the US a terrorist nation. The families of 100,000 Iraqui civilian "collateral casualities" will back me up in this view.

Huh?? :confused: I can generally wade through your verbiage, tw, but you've lost me here. So lots of foreign companies might be shipping God knows what to the US. Therefore, we should not be concerned about the port the stuff is shipped through? Like I'm a member of the Taliban and I ship something through London versus Dubai, no biggie?

My schedule is such that I don't get to listen to Rush Limbaugh very often, but I think he's on the side of the port deal going through, and what you're quoting comes from one of the democrats in congress.

Doesn't matter whose name is on the paperwork, the mob runs the waterfront. That is not going to change.

And know with all of the newly kindled port security paranoia I'll bet port security measures will be stepped up significantly.

Absolutely correct, and I said it above. The Mafia will not, however, POLICE the waterfronts or be involved in their security. For that we have the merry men of Homeland Security. Which means we are in deep trouble. And thanks to the laws we have in THIS country, it will be a violation of their civil rights if somebody who looks like he "does not belong around here" is detained and searched by police or security guards. The people who want to harm us in any way possible use our generous legal system to their advantage. They have the time and the means to wait for the opportunity to put the right person in the right place at the right time. And it will not be an anglo woman in her early 50's who does the deed. Somebody here posted on another message about how we are not permitted to "profile" Arab men between 18-25 although that is precisely who all of the terrorists are recruiting. Maybe we need to read that again.

I have MANY Arab friends online, people who I deal with almost daily, and 3 of them live in Dubai or the Emirates. They are really nice young men, I like them very much. They all have an astonishing amount of disposable income, they are all going to college, and they seem to have absolutely no issues with politics, dealing with women, or jijad. Someday they may be stopped and searched in an airport here, simply because they are of a middle east appearance and all their names sound alike. This will be unfortunate, but inevitable. We really have no choice, this is not racist. Nothing can change the fact that a group which they are part of has decided to declare war on the West. On the day that Sweden becomes a terrorist state, we will also be detaining and searching tall blondes with names like Sven.

http://cellar.org/2006/uaemap.jpg

Up at the upper right is the Strait of Hormuz. 17 billion gallons of oil per year must be shipped through that 21-mile wide section of water with Iran to the north. The shipping route is skinnier than that, only about a mile wide. The destination of that oil is the US, Japan, and western Europe.

I don't know how relevant this really is, but this is almost certainly the same state run port management firm that runs the Dubai dry docks in the UAE. Those dry docks are considered secure enough that the US military has routinely put its ships there for repair. The USS Stark was repaired there after being severely hit during the Iran-Iraq war..

It's also the same management company that was managing these drydocks on March 27, 2002 when one of the sea gates failed, causing a wall of water to rush in, killing scores of workers. I don't know if mismanagement contrbuted to the accident, but it's something to consider. Maybe worker safety standards aren't the same there that they are here.

Well, Glatt, its about like Katrina. Horrific natural disaster that no one could have foreseen? Government indifferemce? Governmnet prejudice toward the black and the poor? Stupid poor people who "shudda planned"? Who knows? So, scores of people in a foreign country were killed. So what? Dubai Ports was created by a member of the local ruling family. If you're Sheik Whoever the 42nd, you don't really care about the popular vote. It says on your birth certificate that you get to be bossman. Workers be damned.

I'm sure the Dubai Royal Family is both educated enough in Western Ways and astute enough that they won't allow such a thing to happen in NYC. They may follow local custom and allow it in N.O., but that's not the point.

If I were a member of a group that was as out-gunned and out manned as the Taliban is, I'd play chess with my enemy. I'd know that a head-on confrontation would mean that I'd lose. I'd acess my strong points. Hmmm... Oil, number one, the straits of Hormuz, a zillion plus fanatical followers who grow in number with each "collateral" casualty inflicted by my enemy...

Sure, I've got a knight on the board who could take the opposing player's bishop. I also see that this move would allow my opponent to take my queen by sacrificing a mere pawn. I sit back and study the situation carefully....

Didn't the Arabs invent the game of chess in the area which is now modern day Pakistan?

2,800 casualties - WTC
2,300 casualties and counting - US military

My father who taught me how to play chess, didn't mind losing the occasional pawn. He guarded his queen well and was a sly player of the game. He told me that he learned his best moves from a houseboy in Burma during WWII.

Glatt, they had a crew working on the outside of that gate from a barge when the barge crashed into the gate causing it to fail. It's ok though, most of the dead were foreigners. :rolleyes:

Clearly my evil twin, tw. must have written this last paragraph. Either that or mad cow disease is an excuse: The intended version said:

If our ports are at risk, then we must stop international trading. The threat is not from employees moving containers. The threat is so many companies who hand off and exchange containers in 'port of origin' and during transition through numerous other ports. Who runs a company that only moves a container one more time - after so many other foreigners and after the container would have already exploded - is not a threat. Furthermore labor union rules, mafia, and law enforcement means the owner could not be a threat.

To not worry about all those other companies that do cargo handling elsewhere without supervision by American labor or law enforecement is naivety, and completely unfair to Dubai. Myopia made obvious by where a D- grade from the 911 Commission comes from. This port controversy is about too many voices who did not first learn the facts. And yes that includes what may even be the majority of Senators, Governors, and big city mayors from those six ports.

Expanding on that paragraph:
Clearly, just by the nature of his name, Sven should be included on an enemies list. Where is Richard Nixon when we need enemy lists based upon....

Meanwhile, the administration had made no effort to address or even learn why the 911 Commission issued a D-. Naive should get educated and address the issue where problems really exist. That starts by making fewer enemies and more allies. Who owns port 'container moving' machines and storage yards is not a problem - especially if that owner is a most loyal ally.

UT's map demonstrates why we need Dubai allies. Real threat means world wide oil shortages. Only one supertanker exploded in the Straits of Hormuz means worldwide economic disaster. Why do we know this? The threat was well acknowledged and effectively addressed by the Reagan administration.

Meanwhile, notice who dominates one half that bottleneck - Iran. If we cannot trust United Arab Emirates or Oman, then all is lost starting with the Strait. Trusted allies have no problem with their closest friend's businesses - or else those close friends no longer remain allies.

The controversy over who moves containers is about the myopic trying to make fewer friends. A UAE government with major economic interests in the US is a best thing that can happen to US security. Learn why we need allies and why George Jr's military conquests and other attempts to undermine our allies puts American at greatest risk. A safest thing for America is to have a Dubai company moving containers on a dock. The worst thing that could happen is that we alienate another ally - especially one on UT's map.

Those who worry about who move containers just are not looking beyond the tip of their nose. There is a real world beyond that nose. That also means we need allies and we must not piss allies off because we need them that badly - especially now thanks to George Jr.

Here's what brings me down. Way back in 2002, the Bush administration cut funding for port inspections (and civil engineering projects like levees in N.O.) in order to give those in the 2 million plus bracket a nice little tax cut

Now, what does the Bush administration consider more important? Tax write-off's for him and his friends or the security of the United States? Don't all answer at once. :mad:

I think most of the current administration's actions are pretty clearly aimed at moving money into the pockets of pals, and little else.

Don't forget the $400 billion to 'Pearl Harbor' a nation that was not even a threat to any of its adjacent neighbors. Then when this president wanted Europe to help pay for rebuilding of Iraq, they asked, "how much?" $20+ billion. That was more than all aid to most of Africa. $20 billion for an oil rich nation? Somehow the president never understands anything except spend, spend, spend, .... on projects to the greater glory of his religion. It's a new budget entry. Faith based contributions.

Meanwhile is it $10 or $20 billion to rebuild Iraq's electric grid. The grid that now outputs less electricity then ever - less than when Saddam ran it in 1990. Of course. The boss is an MBA. Like GM and AT&T, costs increase when an MBA is the boss.

911 Commission gave this president a D- on port security. Still that means nothing. Security (like reading his PDBs) is not relevant to his religious and political agendas. Security, like reading, is a 'dirty' detail. This president doesn't get bogged down in such details.

To find a president this bad - hands down - we must go back to Nixon. No cellar dweller has ever read so many criticisms from me of any other politician. Even Sharon never earned such negative comments. None have been as bad and as corrupt as George Bush, Jr. George Jr will probably be the most corrupt president in my lifetime. This from someone who has no political affiliation or love of either party.

IMO, W. has the dubious honor of being THE worst, most corrupt president in the history of the US. I'd actually rather have Nixon in office at this point over W. At least Nixon didn't incorporate the agenda of the religious wrong into national politics. There's THAT much to be said in behalf of tricky Dick. W. doesn't have a single redeeming quality. Frankly, he is an asymptomatic psychopath with messianic delusions. He is corrupt and crooked as hell, as well as being completely inept. He bungled the response to 9/11, his tax cuts for the wealthy few have helped undermine the prosperity and security of this country, he's a drunk who has started drinking again (look at his rosy complexion in recent pics), his VP goes around shooting people, and he shovels our tax dollars into the gaping hole that is called Halliburten, and pours trillions of dollars into a foreign debacle that only undermines US security more everyday, rather than strengthens it.

Go check out the boards on the ARMY TIMES and you'll discover that even our gung ho and mostly politicaly naive young soldiers are on the verge of revolt against this administration and its foolish foreign war.

I can't say enough bad things about W. And every other person in the US voted him back into office. What a time of national shame for a once proud Nation.

More of the evidence of the unexpected side-taking: Hillary is against the sale, but Bill is an advisor to the Dubai firm looking to buy the ports.

"An advisor"? His advice was to submit to a 45-day investigation. Which is probably what they'd have to do in any case.

Whores will do anything for money. Prostitutes will do almost anything.

Non sequitur.

Novak makes a compelling case that Bill was also pushing for Joe Lockhart, his old press secretary to be spokesman for the company. He wouldn't do that if he were truly against it.

Meanwhile CNN is saying that the CEO of Israel's largest international shipping firm has written in favor of the deal, giving the Dubai company a strong vote of confidence. That's enough for me. If they can comply with Israeli security requirements, they may actually be able to teach the US a thing or two.

Well that takes care of that.
It was nice to see congress grow some balls and stand up to Bush, regardless of the issue. :D

It is telling that they stood up to him on a pretty much bogus issue though. The Patriot Act has been renewed, Reichstag fire and cancelled elections to follow. :headshake

Any of you been to the UAE? Know anything about it? The UAE is about as western-minded as possible, they saw where things were going to go and invested all that oil revenue in a new Singapore, an open, tolerant, business-friendly city with seriously world-class facilities and world-class standards across the board. I mean if glatt thinks their health&safety he should start looking at accidents closer to home.

If someone wants to do some wetwork though a US port they'd have a far easier time just blackmailing p& bribing people as spies traditionally do that buying bloody P&O. What amuses me is that this deal, is in it's full scope, has so little to do with US ports. DPW runs ports all over the place and does so very well. DPW is government owned because the government has been pumping all those oil revenues into building private industry, it's not even some kind of state-run strategic thing. Flown Emirates? Doubt you feared being blown out of the sky while enjoying probably the best economy class around for often the lowest fear. If it was a European company noone would have batted an eyelid. Pathetic xenophobia. Excellent way to ostracise probably the most progressive of ME states.

Yeah, we're screwed no matter what happens.

We could allow UAE manage P&O and allow them to hold all the port records offshore and inaccessible to US courts or we could piss them off, have them dump the deal, and really screw everything up.

Oops. There go scores of US manufacturing jobs!

Well, uh, that docking center for US warships was just slightly important. This reaction is one of the downsides to dealing with a state-owned entity, but the US was going to get screwed on this one way or the other.

Oh, and would you like to take a guess as to which US company the ports are probably going to be turned over to? Give you a hint: It starts with an "H" and is going to seriously benefit the vice president.

I honestly don't think the scrapping of this deal really involved a fear of an Arab nation controlling major US ports. This was the spin the media put on it to whip up the public, but I really think this is all about kickbacks, behind-the-scenes deals, politics, and a lot of US businesses and contracts that we're not fully aware of.

Probably not behind the scenes but in the media and on this thread is a different story.

jag. You sound so very different when it's a country you like. You don't like the US and will play devil's advocate no matter what we do. If I say black, you'll scream white. We can't win with you. you say 'pathetic xenophobia' when it's us, but, when it's YOU (or, countries you lurve) you are all set to fight. It's boring.

your blind hatred for the US is every bit as misguided as Toby Keith's blind love for the same.

Wolf Shitzer is on cnn and the big money people are worried. He also talks to a woman from UAI. Don't get this wrong, but when does a woman speak for an arab country?

Most of the people I talked to were surprised that a foreign company has been running the ports up till now. I didn’t know it either.
The UAE company is as qualified as any to do the job and security doesn’t seem to be a problem, but it still irks me that our critical infrastructure, at least some of it, is foreign owned. Globalization be damned. :(

There is a ‘line of thought’ that the Congress has slapped George Jr in the face in part due to what was discovered in a House Investigation of 520 pages entitled "Failure to Initiate". Discovered? Did they read his autobiography?

Meanwhile, don't think for one minute that this Port Nonsense is an isolated incident. From The Economist of 4 Mar 2006: It did not start here. Remember when a Chinese company bid for Unocal. The uproar about selling off strategic interests was completely bogus. But Rush Limbaugh logic and fears prevailed. Meanwhile how does Lukoil - a Russian company - own so many American gasoline stations without hype and fear?

Using the logic of fear about Port Nonsense, then Singapore also cannot be trusted to operate American ports OR any port that ships containers to America. BTW, that is where the larger risk is. If we cannot trust someone to simply move containers from ships to trains and trucks, then we also cannot trust those actions in overseas ports where the danger really originates.

Unfortunately above is too logical to promote Port Nonsense fears. Instead, better to torture someone, have him lie to stop that torture, then use that lie to hype more Orange alerts about another Al Qaeda attack.

Its bull shit. Best thing we can do for terrorists is to accuse and fear our closest friends. This includes the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, and ... did you hear of new restrictions George Jr wants to put on Canadians? Yes, even Canadians can no longer be trusted.

my point is that you see say, the muslim brotherhood and the UAE as pratically the same thing.

I was watching 'The Cost of Freedom' on Fox and they were blaming the whole port issue on the Democrats. One of the commentators even used the word 'treason'. Someone needs to remind themselves that Republicans are the ones who control both houses of Congress.

'Fair and balanced?'

you sound surprised richlevy.

Globalisation is a two-way street. One of the risks you have to bear. You buy their's then they buy yours.

Big Cat's - sorry, Jaguar's assessment of the UAE isn't so biased a view IMO. They are probably the most-forward-looking of the Middle East nations. The way Dubai has expanded as a container hub, Emirates Airlines and, more currently, the drive towards tourism, and real-estate ventures such as Palm and The World are all examples of their extremely active and financially aggressive approach to developing their nation and expanding their interests beyond their immediate shores.

Also, it’s a bit late in the day to complain that business activities will not be all true blue and above board. The deal will undoubtedly involve back-handers and politicians on the take when the stakes are so high and opportunites so available. When has it been any different? Strip away these issues and fundamentally it must be far better that the UAE finances are directed into positive and peaceful initiatives such as those described above, than to funding terrorist and/or other subversive organisations. The West stands to gain more getting closer to a nation that shares its goals and objectives especially when that nation is so geographically important (Straits of Hormuz, proximity to Iran, etc.,) – makes a nice change not having to contemplate invasion, that’s for sure.

The ports deal and its Arab connotations is bound to be controversial, what with terrorism’s tentacles spreading ever further and deeper. But the surface fear that this generates has to be tempered by the solid fact that the goals of Al Quaeda are not shared by the majority of Arabs, and certainly not by nations and rulers such as those of the UAE. Our governments will do more to protect the long-term interests and safety of its peoples by fostering strong and positive relations with such an entity, whether it is Arab or not, than nurturing and responding to the immediate fears being voiced whose basis is unfounded if not very shaky, to say the least.

Trade talks scuttled after DPW fiasco
------------------------------------
REPERCUSSIONS are already being felt from the US Congress forcing Dubai Ports World to dispose of its newly acquitted American terminal holdings. Only hours after DPW announced plans to transfer ownership of the US contracts that it bought as part of the global P&O Ports takeover, plans for the next round of talks on a bi-lateral US-UAE free trade agreement were scuttled. The US Trade Representative said on Friday that more time is needed to prepare for the fifth round of talks in light of the DPW fiasco. That announcement came as President Bush told newspaper editors that blocking the DPW deal could have a chilling effect on foreign investment, a comment echoed in remarks by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "If I were in the shipping industry, the maritime industry, the cargo industry ... I would be concerned about measures that would strangle business and put workers out of work in this country," Chertoff told the Financial Times. Meanwhile, four Republican politicians from Georgia were in Dubai over the weekend to mend fences. Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss and congressmen Phil Gingrey and John Linder all said after their talks that the Emirates would remain a strong ally. "Our countries have been friends and will continue to be friends," Chambliss said after meeting with DPW executives and the UAE vice president.
Lloyd's Register - Fairplay web links

From today's shipping news email:

No way to treat a friend: UAE about US
----------------
INITIAL reaction from the United Arab Emirates to the collapse of part of the DP World/P&O deal leaves observers in no doubt that relations with the US have soured. In a strongly-worded opinion piece in today's edition of Gulf News, Dr Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, professor of political science at UAE University in Al Ain, comments: "No one should pretend it's business as usual, at least not here in the United Arab Emirates." He says the UAE's until now pro-American business community has been insulted and it should come as no surprise if there was a response. Similarly the people and government of the UAE are unlikely to forget the way the US Congress questioned Dubai's trustworthiness. "People in America will forever remember 9/11. They will always make connection between 9/11 and the UAE ... Was this a tit-for-tat? Are we even now? One thing is certain," he adds, "the two countries are now further apart." The academic concludes: "The US-UAE relationship is not at its peak. Government, businessmen and the public at large in the UAE are bitter. The ports controversy has left a huge dent in the usually friendly relationship between the countries. This time around it is up to Washington to compensate the UAE and it is for the good-hearted Americans to make it up with the generous people of the UAE."
Lloyd's Register - Fairplay web links

I love and embrace my Muslim brothers where ever they may be (and I SPIT on my Muslim sisters, as is customary in Islam). It just seems that no matter what the US does, we're fucked. If we play nice, we're pussies, if we play hard-ball, we're bastards. Whatever. Perhaps it's a knee-jerk reaction (which would be shocking coming out of DC, dontcha think?) but sometimes knee-jerk reactions happen.

*no attack on Cyclefrance, but, it is easy to point out the mistakes the US has made as our news is splashed all over the damn world. Monday morning quarter-backs and all that. Pip, pip!

As our government has screwed up big time at virtually every turn it makes (health, immigration, funding, defence, investment, marriage, peerages, royalty, pensions, welfare, transport, housing, education... the list is endless) feel free to attack any time.

Governments everywhere must have an endless supply of feet - they certainly need them as they seem to shoot them off at every opportunity.

Rewriting history, I see. No wonder you know just all about that.

For just one instance, here's something you are incapable of admitting, because your neurotic, imbalanced ego is involved: paying death benefits for Palestinian suicide bombers is sourcing terrorism. Aiding and abetting, to be exact. So, "no terrorism" -- ha.

I get this; you never will. That's why I'm smarter than you are, tw, which I will demonstrate as many billion times as I care to, and about which you can do nothing as long as your mind is as it currently is. While you don't have to feel bad for me to feel good, and it doesn't help, in the words of the quip -- your postings go a long way to demonstrate how lame those who oppose me so often are... so very often.

Oh yeah, that's the answer. Beat them by concentrating on taking out their cheerleaders in Iraq instead of the players, elsewhere.:headshake

Another piece of related news...:

SSA devising terminal strategy
SSA MARINE, named by many as a potential suitor for Dubai Ports World's US holdings, has retained Citigroup to "explore its strategic alternatives." The Seattle-based terminal operator said it has received enquiries from many companies looking to partner with, or invest in SSA Marine, as well as to acquire additional operations." In a statement issued on Friday, company spokesman Bob Watters said: "none of the alternatives we are exploring would involve selling control of our US operations to a company owned by a foreign government." SSA's announcement follows DPW's move to retain bankers and lawyers to begin the expedited sale of the US terminal and stevedoring contracts bought in the larger global sale from P&O Ports. SSA has contracts on the US East, Gulf and Pacific coasts as well as well as in Mexico, Panama and Chile.
Lloyd's Register - Fairplay web links

Bruce, I've said before the Iraq campaign is part and parcel of the overall war. It isn't the entire war -- only a piece of it.

Oh, I see. Iraq is just part and parcel of the Bush war on the American people and their annoying Constitution.
Thanks for clearing that up.:right:

Bruce, quit being a jerk: the Constitution is substantially and in all ways better supported by this administration than its disgraceful and maladroit predecessor. Bush's war is my war. It should be your war too, since more democracies 'round about the planet would be good for this democracy. I can see that; why can't you? Too many drugs in your past? Too much antipatriotism? Damned disgusting.

Try thinking. Try understanding your own interests -- that should help you understand mine.