Port Nonsense

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

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?

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:

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.

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.

[Perry Winkle]

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

I'm surprised the universe didn't implode.

Originally Posted by tw

I believe you are confusing Saudi concepts with Arab.

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.

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tw

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.

Huh?? 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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Huh?? 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.

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

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.

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.

[Elspode]

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

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.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile I am appalled that some here fell for this obvious Rush Limbaugh type propaganda:

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.

[Perry Winkle]

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

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by wolf

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

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by wolf

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

Arab companies? Feds are worried about the mafia at ports

NEW YORK (AP) -- Justice Department lawyers warned eight months ago that a nefarious element had infiltrated important East Coast ports, but they weren't talking about terrorists or Arab shipping companies.

They were talking about the mafia.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

There is no war on terror. There is a war on Islam . . . There was no terrorism coming out of Iraq. It was coming out of Afghanistan.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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