# US Port's to be secured by UAE?



## Kenpoist (Feb 20, 2006)

What do you think of this proposal to let our US Port's fall into the hands of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)?  

I think it is absolutely absurd!  Why don't we hand over airport security to Iran, the border's to the Mexican government  (oops..we seem to have already done that), and our Military to Syria?

What ever happened to self-preservation.  Our forefathers did not shed their blood throughout the past few centuries for us to just give this country away based on the almighty dollar (making a profit/ oil ventures etc..).

I hope we wise up soon- for our children's sake!


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 20, 2006)

At one point in my life, I was a 'Free Trade' Democrat. I was wrong. 

That Dubai Worldport (I think that is the name) would acquire the British company now running these ports is just the same as when AOL purchased Time-Warner (or when Time purchased Warner Brothers). 

If we are going to run our government on the philosphy of 'Free Trade' and 'Capital Growth Through Acquisition', we are going to encounter this type of conundrum. This is the government we elected with George Bush. (and Bill Clinton before him --- although maybe it was the 1994 Republican Revolution)

Before we complain about an Arab company running our ports, we should look closely at NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other ~~FTA's in our present and future.


P.S. We all do know that it has been a British Company running our ports, right? So, is it that it is a foreign company .... or a foreign company from a world where the skin color is more olive than here?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> P.S. We all do know that it has been a British Company running our ports, right? So, is it that it is a foreign company .... or a foreign company from a world where the skin color is more olive than here?


 
No, I think that is a little bit of a cheap shot. Relations between the U.S. and that part of the world, unlike those between the U.S. and the U.K., _ARE_ strained. While we may enjoy a good relationship with the _rulers _of the U.A.E., I bet we're not too popular with some of the population there. IMO, it is an honest concern, particularly as two of the 9/11 terrorists came from there.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 21, 2006)

Asking a question is a cheap shot? 

The actions of 911 were not state sponsored events. Even the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, at most, were cursory to those activities. That 15 of the 19 hi-jackers came from Saudi Arabia has done little to affect how our government deals with that nation. 

Why would the United States be 'not too popular' there? On 9/12/2001, we had the support and well wishes of the entire world. We were urged to keep shopping and go to Disneyworld to demonstrate that the 'Terrorists' hadn't won; business as usual. So why wouldn't a corporate acquisition be business as usual? 

Did you see the names of the people who 'signed off' on this acquisition before it reached President Bush? Rumsfeld, Rice, Chertoff, Hadley. These are the leaders of our country. This is the government we have put in place.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 21, 2006)

It's the mother of all bad ideas, UNLESS....there is some serious oversight in place.  What BOTHERS me is our president (whom I have continually supported) has gone out of his way to push his Homeland Security agenda.  This seems to be in direct violation of that policy.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 22, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> It's the mother of all bad ideas, UNLESS....there is some serious oversight in place. What BOTHERS me is our president (whom I have continually supported) has gone out of his way to push his Homeland Security agenda. This seems to be in direct violation of that policy.


 
Today, we learn the President was not aware that his administration approved the transaction until after it happened. 

When he learned, he did not see a problem. 

A former Reagan White House official, and H.W. Bush Treasury official, (Burnett, I think) on Terri Gross's program today indicated that there were substantial macro-economic issues to consider before calling off the deal. Many foreign governments are holding American dollars (financing our huge trade deficit). Cancelling the acquisition of P&O by Dubai Ports World could send shocks to those lenders. If they decided to divest their dollar holdings, it could spell trouble.


----------



## Kane (Feb 23, 2006)

Although I am very much for free trade being a strong supporter of globalization and internationalism, this is a bit much! It is not the UAE's government I'm worried about. I'm sure they just want to do business. What I am worried about is their openness to fellow Muslims, maybe even wahabis and extremists! You also never know whether or not a few port workers maybe strong supporters of Al Queda! :eek

Not sure whether this is a good idea Mr. Bush!


----------



## DngrRuss (Feb 23, 2006)

And they wonder why I drink.

It just seems that I, and others I have read and listened to, were right.  Bush and Co. are not really Republicans.  They only wear the guise of Republicans.  They are power mad bougouis maniacs that don't care about the lives, rights, and security of the American people.  they only care for their own selfish interests.  I know that many conservatives will venomously disagree with me, but I wonder how much more it is going to take before normal, rational, thinking conservatives will step up to the plate and demand that they get their party back from the fun folks that want a new empire or a Christian theocracy.

I hope that this issue wakes you guys up.  And with the numbers of Republicans that are jumping ship off the USS Bush, I think that it is starting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 23, 2006)

I'm not sure if one can really stop something like this.  It's a symptom of globalization.  The US has intricate ties to so many different places and people on the globe that it doesn't surprise me one bit that "some" (that is an understatement) of these ties lead to places like UEA.  One of the interesting things about this is that its hard to have enemies when one is so tied to everyone else.  It forces people realize that we are all in the same polder and if your neighbors are manning the pump one doesn't want to piss them off.


----------



## dobermann (Feb 23, 2006)

as being not american, i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future. like financining bin-laden, giving WMD to iraq and other ventures..

maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead, maybe you are right. but things that happened to poor civilians and brave soldiers on homeland and different countries is a lot selfinduced. i dont say its "americans" in general, but the government has done a lot of f***-ups. sometimes it worries me a lot. look at the nuclear war thread. or scholars for 911. maybe thats already BS, but still. torture for freedom? pre-emptive strikes? hey man, get real, if i was hit "pre-emptively" you would have to expect an answer. and if it was planes..

how come the almighty US want to hand over their ports (remember the USS "whatever that name was" <- ignorant european), to the nation that most terrorists from 911 were from. this is weird! i dont know whats going on, but i am sure, it wont be a good thing..


----------



## Ray (Feb 23, 2006)

dobermann said:
			
		

> ...i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future....giving WMD to iraq....


Which they promptly lost before our invasion.


			
				dobermann said:
			
		

> maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead...


Oh, I didn't realize that your were european...


----------



## Mark L (Feb 23, 2006)

Bad idea.  Islamic nations are not our friends.  The Islamic voices I hear are intolerant of those who believe differently, and call for their destruction  (cartoons, USS Cole, marine barracks, 9/11).  There are likely significant segments of the Islamic faith who believe differently, and yet there voices are largely silent.  I simply do not trust them based on their own words and deeds.

Anybody listen to Jay Severin?    He often says "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far all terrorists are Muslims."  Not entirely accurate, but applicable to those seeking the destruction of the US and Isreal.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 23, 2006)

Mark L said:
			
		

> Anybody listen to Jay Severin? He often says "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far all terrorists are Muslims." Not entirely accurate, but applicable to those seeking the destruction of the US and Isreal.


 
Are you talking about the Jay Severin that claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize while working at MSNBC? It seems the Pulitzer Prize people never heard of him. Further, The Pulitzer Prize people don't give awards for web-page contributors (which is what he claimed he received it for). 

Oh, yeah, and he also lied about his degree in Journalism from Boston University. It seems he never recieved it. 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/16/severins_phony_pulitzer?mode=PF

http://www.jayseverin.org/

As for Dubai Ports World.... either Free Trade is a principle of the Republican Party, or it isn't. 

With how much fear mongering the President has done concerning 'Arabs', this shouldn't be a surprise. The two principles are in conflict, aren't they?


----------



## BrandiJo (Feb 23, 2006)

We talked about this in my gov class and im not sure where i stand but the common idea of the class is that its a good thing, it shows we are not culturaly blind or racest, that just because these people happen to be different from us do not make them bad and just becaues one "group" of people overe there dont like us dont mean we should be blind to the help the rest can offer us.... anyways thats what i got out of my class today ..aagain not sure what i think but that seemed to be the idea of my class and i can see truth in it but at the same time only 10% of ships that come in are inspeccted and if we now have "bad" people in control of laodin and unloading then that leaves alot of 90% of bad things to come in with them


----------



## Mark L (Feb 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Are you talking about the Jay Severin that claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize while working at MSNBC? It seems the Pulitzer Prize people never heard of him. Further, The Pulitzer Prize people don't give awards for web-page contributors (which is what he claimed he received it for).
> 
> Oh, yeah, and he also lied about his degree in Journalism from Boston University. It seems he never recieved it.
> 
> ...


Yup, that's the one. I have no knowledege of his claim to a Pultizer, though I have heard him advertise his education at both Vassar and a masters at BU. I am not his defender, I just like the quote. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As for Dubai Ports World.... either Free Trade is a principle of the Republican Party, or it isn't.
> 
> With how much fear mongering the President has done concerning 'Arabs', this shouldn't be a surprise. The two principles are in conflict, aren't they?


What is the second principle? I would guess you're referring to our security, specifically against terrorists threats most likely to come from Islamic fundamentalists. Yes, they are in conflict. The source of my fear is not from the President, it is derived from the decades-long actions of Islamic terrorists. My opinion is that security trumps free trade, every time. The administration screwed this one up badly.


----------



## dobermann (Feb 23, 2006)

maybe the afghans get a good deal out of it, unship the heroin they produce, bring it into turkey and spray it all over europe?


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It forces people realize that we are all in the same polder and if your neighbors are manning the pump one doesn't want to piss them off.



So it becomes a polite cold war of sorts?


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 23, 2006)

BrandiJo said:
			
		

> We talked about this in my gov class and im not sure where i stand but the common idea of the class is that its a good thing, it shows we are not culturaly blind or racest, that just because these people happen to be different from us do not make them bad and just becaues one "group" of people overe there dont like us dont mean we should be blind to the help the rest can offer us....


Looking out for ones interests, or self-preservation, is neither being culturally blind or racist.  Often times these are used as labels to attack people who have differing opinions or views based in self-preservation.

I personally think the deal was a poor choice.  To do something like this for the express purpose of "proving" our committment to globalization at the expense of our own self-preservation is in my opinion akin to suicide.  We don't have to prove anything to anyone, we should be a little more concerned about our well-being as a country, regardless of how we are percieved by the outside world.

These very people in both of our political parties, our government custodians, would sell their soul for worthless money.  Essentially, they ARE selling their posterity off to the highest bidder for their own personal and immediate gains, disregarding the well-being of their posterity.

Just my opinions on the subject.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 23, 2006)

I don't understand why we would allow this kind of control in our Ports to be under ANY foreign control, whether it is British or UAE, or any other nations.  It just seems like common sense that for the security of the nation, pre-9/11 or post-9/11, this is one of those things that would have to be run by a US company.  A US company is subject to tighter oversight here at home, than a company based in another nation.  If security is a concern, this much seems obvious.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Feb 23, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we would allow this kind of control in our Ports to be under ANY foreign control, whether it is British or UAE, or any other nations. It just seems like common sense that for the security of the nation, pre-9/11 or post-9/11, this is one of those things that would have to be run by a US company. A US company is subject to tighter oversight here at home, than a company based in another nation. If security is a concern, this much seems obvious.


 I agree with you that U.S. companies should be in the business of running the ports,but they were once apon a time. What happened that changed it and are there any U.S. companies interested? This whole issue has had me dumbfounded until today. I think I finally get it. Consider this: If the Bush administration was really against the UAE deal,how would the respective parties react? I think the left would be all for it and make these arguements in oposition of the administration. 1. The UAE does not have any ties to terrorism. 2. This is a racist issue because UAE are arabs and muslims. 3. Uae is a major oil producer and upsetting them will result in higher oil prices therefore giving more profitts to the Presidents freinds in the oil business. 4.Upsetting the Uae will result in more terrorist attacks. 5. There ar no sanctions against the UAE by the United Nations. The right wing politicians would object to the deal just as they are now.OK,now where are with this now? BOTH sides of the isle are against it. The deal now doesn't have a chance of going through! Could it be that Bush has outfoxed everyone?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 23, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> So it becomes a polite cold war of sorts?


 
Yes.  Because eventually, the islamic nations who fund/support/look the other way in regards to terrorism will end up driving the US and others in the West away (assuming that we start ramping up our alternative energy...).  This will be a disaster for the nations involved.  Deprived of connections to us (our money), these nations would be forced to do what was neccesary in order to rebuild them.


----------



## Andrew Main (Feb 23, 2006)

I don't understand why we make the rules and then let the rules, rule us.  Sure free trade is good and having peace in the world is our goal, but that is a figment of our imagination.  The world is a scary place full of people who will literally die to fulfill their "destiny".   People who would dance in celebration of our countries destruction.

We are not debating whether a foreign company should or should not run our ports.  This is simply a debate of a particular country running our ports.  A particular country with terrorist ties.  We should discriminate.  Discriminate against any country, company or entity that would be questionable for our safety as US citizens. 

I never thought that I would say this, but thank god for Congress.  They are the only things holding this up.  They are acting as a bipartisan group and looking out for the good of the people.  Its about time.


----------



## Andrew Main (Feb 23, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Looking out for ones interests, or self-preservation, is neither being culturally blind or racist. Often times these are used as labels to attack people who have differing opinions or views based in self-preservation.
> 
> I personally think the deal was a poor choice. To do something like this for the express purpose of "proving" our committment to globalization at the expense of our own self-preservation is in my opinion akin to suicide. We don't have to prove anything to anyone, we should be a little more concerned about our well-being as a country, regardless of how we are percieved by the outside world.
> 
> ...


 
You speak the truth my friend.....


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 23, 2006)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Could it be that Bush has outfoxed everyone?


 
No.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 24, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we would allow this kind of control in our Ports to be under ANY foreign control, whether it is British or UAE, or any other nations.  It just seems like common sense that for the security of the nation, pre-9/11 or post-9/11, this is one of those things that would have to be run by a US company.  A US company is subject to tighter oversight here at home, than a company based in another nation.  If security is a concern, this much seems obvious.



Because who owns the shipping contract is so low on the list of people responsible for security it is not worth thinking about.

The people in charge of national security at the ports are the Coast Guard, border control and the customs authority. The company running the ports is pretty much limited to choosing security guards- and trying to sneak in a few Arabs instead of Americans would be pretty hard to miss don't you think?

I have been reading about this thing here in Japan. The rest of the world looks at this and is seeing sheer xenophobia. This company was one of only two companies in the running in terms of price. The other one was a Singapore goverment run business. Both countries are in the running for international trade and this is part of thier strategy.

This company has the contracts for ports in Britain, France, Belgium, Australia and many other places. They did not scream about Arab terrorists when the sales went through. Nor has their been any indication that there has been any troubles with national security because of it.

But all the typical American seems to hear are the words "Arab" and they don't even bother to read anything about the situation before they start foaming at the mouth.

I am embarrased to be an American right now with this type of blatent xenophobia. Can't this country read the facts before it starts mouthing off about Arab terrorist ties and the like?

More reading on the matter.

http://www.forbes.com/logistics/2006/02/23/dubai-ports-arab-react-cx_daa_0223dubai.html?partner=rss


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I am embarrased to be an American right now with this type of blatent xenophobia. Can't this country read the facts before it starts mouthing off about Arab terrorist ties and the like?


 
For 5 years, we have been told that we need to fight them because they hate our freedom. One of the freedoms we have been fighting for over the past 20 years is Free Trade.

I believe it says, somewhere, "You reap what you Sow."

So, I guess the answer to your question is, 'No'.


----------



## TimoS (Feb 24, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Deprived of connections to us (our money), these nations would be forced to do what was neccesary in order to rebuild them.



Actually I think that it wouldn't really hurt these nations at all. If the US wouldn't buy their oil, you can bet China and/or India will


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 24, 2006)

TimoS said:
			
		

> Actually I think that it wouldn't really hurt these nations at all. If the US wouldn't buy their oil, you can bet China and/or India will


 
That is a good point.  However, why wouldn't the extremists turn their attention to the "other" infidels?  Why would they want their beloved islamic theocracy dealing with more secularists and infidels (hindus)?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I have been reading about this thing here in Japan. The rest of the world looks at this and is seeing sheer xenophobia.
> 
> But all the typical American seems to hear are the words "Arab" and they don't even bother to read anything about the situation before they start foaming at the mouth.
> 
> I am embarrased to be an American right now with this type of blatent xenophobia. Can't this country read the facts before it starts mouthing off about Arab terrorist ties and the like?


 
All three of these statements describe how I feel about this issue.  It's become a political hammer that is abusing the underlying prejudice against people of middle eastern origin in this country.  There must be an election coming soon...


----------



## TimoS (Feb 24, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why would they want their beloved islamic theocracy dealing with more secularists and infidels (hindus)?



Hmm, that might transfer some of the hatred away from the US, but my guess is that they sort of love to hate US. It is such an easy target to blame, because e.g. the support for Israel. 

If the US would focus on alternative energies (whatever those might be), then I guess you wouldn't need such a strong presence in the Middlle-East, which might also help in taking away some of the hatred. Anyway, I'm just guessing.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 24, 2006)

A foreign country already had control over these particular ports. They happen to be probably our strongest ally. What other country would you be comfortable having control? Let me stick out a few names and see what people might say:

France/Germany
China
India
Turkey
Canada

Just a few random names... another thought. These are 6 ports. I honestly had no idea who controlled them. We have a good many more ports. Who controls those? Are they involved w/ foreign countries too? Should we get up in arms about all aspects of port control?

I've honestly not read/watched enough to get fully educated on the matter. Not enough time yet. I'd love to hear some of the conditions for our governments approval before I make a judgement.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 24, 2006)

TimoS said:
			
		

> If the US would focus on alternative energies (whatever those might be), then I guess you wouldn't need such a strong presence in the Middlle-East, which might also help in taking away some of the hatred. Anyway, I'm just guessing.


 
So am I, but it seems like a win/win situation.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 24, 2006)

TimoS said:
			
		

> Hmm, that might transfer some of the hatred away from the US, but my guess is that they sort of love to hate US. It is such an easy target to blame, because e.g. the support for Israel.
> 
> If the US would focus on alternative energies (whatever those might be), then I guess you wouldn't need such a strong presence in the Middlle-East, which might also help in taking away some of the hatred. Anyway, I'm just guessing.



I think its more for our support of Israel. It does not make alot of sense to me that purchasing a product from someone makes them hate us. Then again, not alot is making sense these days  I suppose it could be that we seem to constantly meddle in countries internal affairs over there, trying to suggest political paths, but I think its mostly Israel...


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> A foreign country already had control over these particular ports. They happen to be probably our strongest ally. What other country would you be comfortable having control? Let me stick out a few names and see what people might say:
> 
> France/Germany
> China
> ...


 
Currently, I believe there are several foreign contries that run terminals in American ports, including Singapore, and China. There are three United States companies that run port terminals, however, P&O was looking to sell their entire operation, not just the American portion of it. The six ports in question account for approximately 10% of P&O's operations. 

So, even if the US portion of the deal falls through, you may find DPW purchasing the other 90% of P&O. I understand their are lucrative ports in Asia that a big part of the transaction.

Were that to happen, as Bill O'Reilly said yesterday (repeatedly), it would be an insult to the UAE government. And perhaps, pissing off an ally at this time would not be 'prudent'.

And just for clarification ... if it sounds like I am on the side of President Bush, and against all of Congress, it is only because for the last 13 years the American Public has elected people who favor free trade over regulated trade. Based on that principle, allowing the transaction to proceed is the only option. To challenge the deal between P&O and DPW requires challenging the entire concept of Free Trade and Globalization.  Which I would gladly do. As I mentioned, I was wrong to support NAFTA. And this is wrong. But our policies dictate that we either, a) accept the deal, or b) reverse our policies.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But all the typical American seems to hear are the words "Arab" and they don't even bother to read anything about the situation before they start foaming at the mouth.



Don, I hear ya.  They were discussing this in my office and everyone was like "OMG!" so I asked them "Why does it really matter..."

No one really had an answer.

Its one thing to feel that way and at least have a viable reasoning behind it, even if it only makes sense to you... another thing altognether to feel that way for no reason.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Because who owns the shipping contract is so low on the list of people responsible for security it is not worth thinking about.
> 
> The people in charge of national security at the ports are the Coast Guard, border control and the customs authority. The company running the ports is pretty much limited to choosing security guards- and trying to sneak in a few Arabs instead of Americans would be pretty hard to miss don't you think?
> 
> ...


 
I am only commenting here because you quoted my posting earlier when you made these comments.

First off, I am not foaming at the mouth in fear of Arabs.  As I stated in my first post, my position is that this is the type of thing that seems logical should remain in the hands of an American company.  It doesn't make sense to me that this would be in the control of a company from ANY other country, Arab, UK, or otherwise.  Please don't imply that I have an anti-Arab xenophobia.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 24, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> First off, I am not foaming at the mouth in fear of Arabs.  As I stated in my first post, my position is that this is the type of thing that seems logical should remain in the hands of an American company.  It doesn't make sense to me that this would be in the control of a company from ANY other country, Arab, UK, or otherwise.  Please don't imply that I have an anti-Arab xenophobia.



That goes for me too!


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 24, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> As I stated in my first post, my position is that this is the type of thing that seems logical should remain in the hands of an American company.  It doesn't make sense to me that this would be in the control of a company from ANY other country, Arab, UK, or otherwise.




Why not? We are not tallking about something that impacts American security. So why should we care if a company based in England, Dubai or whatever pushes the paperwork? Reading up on the matter it seems that the companies with the most experience tend to have that experience from running a lot of ports and that means some of them are going to be from overseas as well.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why not? We are not tallking about something that impacts American security. So why should we care if a company based in England, Dubai or whatever pushes the paperwork? Reading up on the matter it seems that the companies with the most experience tend to have that experience from running a lot of ports and that means some of them are going to be from overseas as well.



As stated in the few news shows I have seen on this, no security as Don and others have stated is under control of others.Only the Port Management. 

This is like saying we should not allow Diamler to have bought out Chrysler because this some how threatens national security. While I agree it might threaten US jobs in that industry, it does not add to any risk or issues to national security. 

So, if we are truly worries about foreign control then why did no one raise the issue when Texas Instruments was bought out/went under. Before that, military parts had to be manufactured in the US, just in case we needed to protect the technology or were at war with the manufacturing country of that item. 

Are we next going to say someone who buys fruit from a foreign country that they are unpatriotic? What about a car or a hand gun or a TV or any other piece of electronics. So, if your neighbor has some of these items in their garage or house, are we going to storm their house under the patriot act, as they are a threat?

Are we going to allow terrorism to win, by fearing ever ghost, and closing our borders and ignoring the world?

Well thank for the lead in Don, it is time for me to step down off the :soapbox:.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Are we going to allow terrorism to win, by fearing ever ghost, and closing our borders and ignoring the world?
> .


 
This is the Straw Man Argument the President used repeatedly within his State of the Union Address. I know of no-one that is calling for closing our borders and ignoring the world. If you are going to ascribe such motives to someone, please identify to whom you are ascribing such claims.

While I happen to think that regulations that make goods and services more difficult to move across borders would be a good thing, even I am not calling for closing the borders. I am calling for regulated trade; fair trade as opposed to free trade.

There are some corporate mergers that should not be allowed to take place. Just as when the major Insurance Companies set up post-office box offices in Carribean Islands to avoid paying income tax in the United States, I think that benefits derived in the United States should be subject to United States Laws. 

This goes for UAE, Britian, Singapore, Argentina, and any other companies that wish to do business here.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This is the Straw Man Argument the President used repeatedly within his State of the Union Address. I know of no-one that is calling for closing our borders and ignoring the world. If you are going to ascribe such motives to someone, please identify to whom you are ascribing such claims.
> 
> While I happen to think that regulations that make goods and services more difficult to move across borders would be a good thing, even I am not calling for closing the borders. I am calling for regulated trade; fair trade as opposed to free trade.
> 
> ...



Prior to World War I, you know the "GREAT WAR" or "THE WAR TO END ALL WARS", the US had this leave us alone attitude. You know isolationism. To which many of the same characteristics are in todays society, of where people say we should leave them alone. That is their problem. We have no right to get involved. 

I am by no means defending the current administration, for I personally do not like the current sitting president. 

So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?

Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad. 

The logical relationship is not there.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?
> 
> Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad.
> The logical relationship is not there.


 
I haven't really been sure about the whole affair. Many have attacked it knee-jerk simply because they want to damage the current Administration. Others, because of the Arab connection. While, I think many _have made up their minds on the basis of race,_ asking questions as to the wisdom of bringing in a corporation headquartered in a region in which we are not thought of so highly is legitimate and NOT racist in and of itself. After doing some research on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the U.A.E. is a valued American ally and a jewell of modernization and liberalization in its part of the world.


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2006)

Largely, I agree with Michael. 

To me, I see a differece between a foreign company such as the British P&O managing our ports...and a foreign government managing our ports.  Daimler was not part of the German goverment.  Dubai Port World is.

There is more than six ports at stake.

_A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported._ 
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Neither the President nor Congress seemed to be aware of the deal.

_President Bush was unaware of the pending sale_
(Washington, via Associated Press, Feb 22)

_Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal._
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Yet, his closest confidant seemed to know all about it.
_ 
Speaking to reporters hours before she was due in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, Rice said the US administration had spent three months vetting the deal, dismissing concerns by several Congress members that it could be a threat to national security.
_(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> While I happen to think that regulations that make goods and services more difficult to move across borders would be a good thing, even I am not calling for closing the borders. I am calling for regulated trade; fair trade as opposed to free trade.


 
As am I, and this comment is dead-on considering what the administration has in mind: 

_The United States is negotiating a free trade agreement with the UAE -- its third largest trading partner in the Middle East after Israel and Saudi Arabia._
(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)

_an equally significant fact in the longstanding bilateral relationship is that the UAE is a vibrant arms market not only for the US but also its allies in Western Europe, particularly France and Britain._ 
(Hong Kong, via Asia Times, Feb 24)

Sources:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB25Ak04.html
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2006/february/middleeast_february740.xml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?
> 
> Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad.
> 
> The logical relationship is not there.


 

Rich Parsons, 

 I have not argued that Dubai Ports World should not be given authority over the terminals in the Ports. 

How then, could I be building a Straw Man argument, against it?

And, if you have a question for me ... why ask 'somebody'? Really, I probably know my thoughts much better than whomever that is.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

I am going to make an extended quote here. I hope you will allow and forgive.

On this thread, I have argued that the policy of free trade favored by the voting American public over the last decade and a half demands that the Dubai Ports World transaction be completed. If we were to stop this transaction, we must question the foundation of the transaction; free trade.

This argument, posted on HuffingtonPost, properly challenges the idea of Free Trade in areas of strategic and tactical security. 

I think this position is reasoned and reasonable. And, if the discussion were allowed to progress that far before turning into one of the 'You just hate Bush' arguments, we might eventually get to my stating this, or a similar opinion. 

For the moment, we have not discussed the merits of Free Trade; to which I have grown opposed. Therefore, there should be no reason to stop the aforementioned transaction. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-are-any-us-ports-ow_b_16325.html



			
				Miles Mogulescu said:
			
		

> There are plenty of good, non-jingoist, reasons to oppose the sale of 6 US ports to a corporation controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. But the bigger question is: why are US ports and other strategic infrastructure being privatized, particularly to companies owned by foreign governments?
> 
> Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 25, 2006)

The idea that a having a port run as it is by a foriegn buyer is a strategic risk just does not pan out. Think about it a second, the security of country is still in the hands of the coast guard, etc. What can the management do to bringthe country to it's knees by running a port? If it ever tried to shut things down, do you think the goverment would not move in to reopen it?

Taken from the proposal by Mogulescu,



> You don't have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments. Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we're going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I'm sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York's finest.)



Now that is a bit of a straw man argument. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency, NYPD and such are goverment agencies meant to provide oversight. They are not for sale and should not be. But the management company of a port, etc- as long as they are not in charge of security, what could they do?

Ah, but we get to the meat of the matter in the next paragraph.



> Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. *Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure.* Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.



Ah yes, the people in goverment want more govermental control and ownership.

Define "strategic." The security of the ports is not being compromised, they can't shut them down... so how does this differ from tons of other things that could be considered "strategic" by people like Hillary Clinton? Strategic metals like steel and the plants that use them? During WWII, rubber was in short supply, shall we consider tire plants strategic?

The democrats seem to be flaming up xenophobia to ram through this chance to take over anything that they can consider strategic.

And remember what happend with the idea of eminent domain?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The idea that a having a port run as it is by a foriegn buyer is a strategic risk just does not pan out. Think about it a second, the security of country is still in the hands of the coast guard, etc. What can the management do to bringthe country to it's knees by running a port? If it ever tried to shut things down, do you think the goverment would not move in to reopen it?
> 
> Taken from the proposal by Mogulescu,
> 
> ...


 

The accusations you make against Democrats could also be made against Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert, right? Oh, yeah, and Governor Pataki. So should you really be arguing against only the Democrats? 

I think that speaks volumes.

That you state the 'Security of the Ports is not being comprimised', makes the assumption that there *is *security in these ports at this time. According to the head of the 911 commission, Mr. Kean, the level of security at the ports is non-existant.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But the management company of a port, etc- as long as they are not in charge of security, what could they do?



After thinking more about it, I agree that if the foreign company was not in charge of security, then what problems could we have?  For some reason, I was thinking it included port security, but it doesn't and that makes more sense.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

What could they do ... 

as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off .... 

I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...


----------



## TimoS (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> the level of security at the ports is non-existant.



And how is blocking this deal going to improve or worsen it ? Like has been said, isn't the security of the ports being handled by totally different people, such as your Coast Guard ? As I understand it, the DPW (or any other company that runs ports for that matter) isn't tasked with security


----------



## TimoS (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....



And how is that different from if the port would be run by an american company ?


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What could they do ...
> 
> as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....
> 
> I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...


I understand, but isn't that the job of security to inspect them?  That isn't a port management issue, but a security issue.  In all truthfullness that could happen now, regardless of the port managment company.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

TimoS said:
			
		

> And how is blocking this deal going to improve or worsen it ? Like has been said, isn't the security of the ports being handled by totally different people, such as your Coast Guard ? As I understand it, the DPW (or any other company that runs ports for that matter) isn't tasked with security


 
TimoS ... 

Security of the Ports is handled by the United States Coast Guard and the United States Immigration and Custom Service. Preventing this transaction will do little to increase security. 

(Edit) _Oh, OK ... claiming security is 'non-existant' is a bit too hyperbolic. The United States Coast Guard has stated their security budgeting of 700 million dollars is approximately 1/5th of what is required to actually secure the Ports to a level equivilent with their charter. ..... So, our ports are 20% secure._ (End Edit).

But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan,  there are some who have concerns. 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City - has concerns (Republican)
Former Governor Kean of New Jersey (Chair of 911 Commission - has concerns (Republican)
Representative King of New York - has concerns (Republican)
Speaker of the House Hastert - has concerns (Republican)
Senate Majority Leader Frist - has concerns (Republican)
Representative Fossella of New York - has concerns (Republican)

I will state it again, the questioning occurring as a result of this business transaction (DPW acquiring P&O), should be directed at the 'Free Trade' agreements and the ever increasing speed of 'Globalization'. These are the real issues.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I haven't really been sure about the whole affair. Many have attacked it knee-jerk simply because they want to damage the current Administration. Others, because of the Arab connection. While, I think many _have made up their minds on the basis of race,_ asking questions as to the wisdom of bringing in a corporation headquartered in a region in which we are not thought of so highly is legitimate and NOT racist in and of itself. After doing some research on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the U.A.E. is a valued American ally and a jewell of modernization and liberalization in its part of the world.



JR,

Thank you for your opinions and post here.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Largely, I agree with Michael.
> 
> To me, I see a differece between a foreign company such as the British P&O managing our ports...and a foreign government managing our ports. Daimler was not part of the German goverment. Dubai Port World is.
> 
> ...




Lady Kaur,

How is it different from A british company than an Arab Company to a German Company to a Japanese Company?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich Parsons,
> 
> I have not argued that Dubai Ports World should not be given authority over the terminals in the Ports.
> 
> ...



***************************************************************************************
Personal Opinion Expressed here, and is not a statement from staff or the board.
***************************************************************************************

michaeledward,

I asked someone, becuase I did not want to turn this into a Rich versus Michael thread. I asked for someone, for I respect that everyone has an opinion and that some may have a perspective that I have not considerd. I have asked for someone so others will reply.

Although it seems when ever I get into a discussion, you make points specifically at me. You ask wy I do thing, You are almost making it look like I am after you. 

When, if you looked at my points and how I approach things, I am actually closer to you than the current adminstration. Yet, just like so many people in politics and also on the web, if you are not with them 100% then you must be against them.

Can we no just set aside this "is he out to get me" or "Is he trying to repress me" attitude, and just make points, and from time to time acknolwedge that the other side has a point, even if you disagree with it. When a person who does this, they do not loose the fight. They actually gain the respect of those who are listening, when you acknowledge that someone has a point.

So, I apologize if somewhere I have hurt your feelings, or you feel that Ihave repressed you, or insulted you. For if any of those were my intention I would tell you straight forward, and then make it a campaign. 

So, can we get along?

Thank you and best regards


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am going to make an extended quote here. I hope you will allow and forgive.
> 
> On this thread, I have argued that the policy of free trade favored by the voting American public over the last decade and a half demands that the Dubai Ports World transaction be completed. If we were to stop this transaction, we must question the foundation of the transaction; free trade.
> 
> ...



In this you are correct. If this is argued to be stopped then you should look at other business deals as well. 

Which goes back to my point in my first post on this thread. Isolationism is the slippery slope you than walk down. How would you address this issue without having the public swing the other way?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What could they do ...
> 
> as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....
> 
> I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...



I know others have asked as well.

Yet I must also ask as I am curious.

How does the management dictate what will and will not be inspected?

I am curious, for even if this is US run, then most likely you could find some people who would take 10K in small bills to slip a container in the right spot.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> In this you are correct. If this is argued to be stopped then you should look at other business deals as well.
> 
> Which goes back to my point in my first post on this thread. Isolationism is the slippery slope you than walk down. How would you address this issue without having the public swing the other way?


 
There is a continuum between 'Isolationism' (sometimes referred to as the Monroe Doctrine) and Free Trade. We do not need to accept either a)Isolationism or b) Free Trade. There are other options.

Ross Perot predicted a Great Sucking Sound of jobs leaving for Mexico in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, ole Ross was a dingbat, but he was correct with that prediction. 

The United States current trade deficit is growing month over month. The rest of the world does not seem to wish to purchase goods made by Americans. This sets the scene for recession. Globalization allows companies to own and operate functions with no local ties; generating no local revenue. 

Because DPW would take its revenue home to its local coffers, it would pay little or no local taxes, which would mean that there would be no revenue to fund increased security by the Coast Guard and Customs Service. Unless we increase taxes on the income of the local workers. 

In my opinion, we need to re-address the whole 'Free Trade is a good thing' idea. Free Trade is seldom good for an individual, while it is very good for a corporation.


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Lady Kaur,
> 
> How is it different from A british company than an Arab Company to a German Company to a Japanese Company?


 
Fair question, Rich.  I hope I can give a fair answer.

A company is different than a foreign goverment.  One reason why,    governments have much more access to capital and strategic resources that can be used to affect the open market or otherwise influence operations in a way that an independent business cannot do.   For example, I'm not crazy about the fact that the German government currently owns a substantial part of our wireless communications network.   

Outside of your question.  there just seems to be a lot going on that is under our noses.  The story originally discussed 6 ports, yet now there is news indicating that there are 21 ports.  The President and congress say they don't know, yet Secy Rice says this was vetted for 3 months.  The desire for a Free Trade pact with the UAE is going largely unnoticed.  Maybe that is just my perception, but I cannot figure it all out.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In my opinion, we need to re-address the whole 'Free Trade is a good thing' idea. Free Trade is seldom good for an individual, while it is very good for a corporation.


Even though I do not now really see a security issue regarding the deal, I do agree with your points regarding Free Trade. I think there must be a balance between protectionism/isolation and somewhat-free trade. But the whole issue of free trade is probably best for another thread.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The accusations you make against Democrats could also be made against Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert, right? Oh, yeah, and Governor Pataki. So should you really be arguing against only the Democrats?
> 
> I think that speaks volumes.



No, Republicans are not behind the bill to turn over _anything_ the goverment decides is "Strategic." The gutless wonders that are backing this are afraid of being buried in the tsunami of xenophobia and are counting on a presedential veto to stop it. That seems to be the reason they are voicing so much concern over the matter of the port deal, but it is democrats backing the trasnfering of private to public control everything from coal mines to aerospace factories that could be called 'strategic.'



> But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan, there are some who have concerns.



You fail to note that the goverment really did not have a hand in anything except recognizing the Taliban. As a transportation hub, they tend to recognize anyone they can do business with.

Really, I find the idea of c- that two of the hijakers came from their country very offensive. You are going to blame an entire country for the actions of two people? What citizenship did the shoe bomber have? How long did some of the hijakers live in Germany?

And you fail to note that they have been one of the most liberal states in the region and one of out best allies. The goverment has been a great help to us and allows our ships to be based there. I am sure there are bad folks living there. But to blame the entire people and the goverment for the actions of two of it's citizens is like blaming the American goverment for Timothy McVeigh.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Don,

Please don't personalize this argument toward me. 

As I have mentioned, I think the policy should go forward. This is the policy the American Public have voted for, over and over again.

The arguments I raise are being made by politicians of all stripes. Maybe you aren't hearing that over in Japan. But some of the loudest voices on this broo-haha are Republican leaders.

But, I do think the policy is wrong, but not because their Arabs, but because they are foreign. 

Are you silent on Bloomberg, Frist, Hastert, Young, Kean, Santorum, Chaffee, Coleman, Graham?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Why not?


 
Because in my opinion, it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, I do think the policy is wrong, but not because their Arabs, but because they are foreign.



If your only problem you have with them being foreign, then why did you spefically point out that two of the hijackers come from the U.A.E.? Or everything else about the U.A.E.?

It really blows my mind when media people who previously screamed about  the idea of racial profiling in airports are now tossing out the fact that two of the hijackers came from Dubai. It says that you blame an entire country, an entire race, an entire religion because of what some of it's members have done. 

Countries like Australia, France and Britain have contracts with this company. Do you honestly think there would have been _absoulutly no_ objections to that fact if there was the slightest worry or trouble?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is a continuum between 'Isolationism' (sometimes referred to as the Monroe Doctrine) and Free Trade. We do not need to accept either a)Isolationism or b) Free Trade. There are other options.
> 
> Ross Perot predicted a Great Sucking Sound of jobs leaving for Mexico in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, ole Ross was a dingbat, but he was correct with that prediction.
> 
> ...



Michael et al,

I never said there was no other option. Specifically I asked you for your input not a history lesson on recent politics. 

So from what I get from your posts, is not that this is a security issue it is an issue of Free Trade and that is only free trade from one side. 

i.e. The US allows anyone to build cars here and also to import cars and sell them. Yet, Japan the second largest Economy on the planet has a closed market, in that Rice and Automobiles are protected by non import in case of Rice and Tarriffs in the case of Automobiles that about double the price of a car. So in this example you are saying that free trade is not at work here, as one side has freedom and the other side does not. If this is really the case then maybe this should be a topic for a new thread, as it really has nothing to do with who owns or runs some of the ports in the USA.

As to history, I will also add to the off topic to make my point of Isolationism versus Expansionism.

In recent history, Nixon opened up China, yet, real trade was not established until recently, and even there, in China is a foreign company goes in, it is requried by law that at least 50% be owned by local investors or corporations. Yet, China had a closed economy and system, and now they have opened it as they have to be able to get the resources they need to expand.

The Soviet Union, (* No longer in existence *), fell and broke up when the countries were about bankrupt and needed to open up to trade and to grow.

East Germany (* Before the fall of the Wall in Berlin *), was a closed country and did very little trade outside, as most that was heavy industry or technology came in was from Russia and other places. After the reunification of Germany, there is still a major issue of technology and work and jobs that is vastly diferent from the Old West and East Germany.

Japan prior to WWII was closed (* Don or other Japanese history buffs can provide the exact dates and centuries of their closure *) and then expanded outward to China and Manchuria to gain resources for their growing economy, they did so by going to war. 

German after WWI and before WWII was into Isolation and wanted the rest of the world to forget it, and them the world, yet, a party arose that convinced the people to move forward and expand to regain their glory and might. 

In the Spanish American War,  The US took Cuba and also the Phillipine Islands from Spain. We gave Cuba their freedom right away, yet the PI the USA held onto as a base of operation in the Far East, until plans of turn over were interrupted by WWII. Once retaken after WWII their freedom was given.

Even though the US had the PI during the 20's and 30's the US wanted to be isolated and it took the Japanese to attack and awake the sleeping giant as the US entered the war.


I could continue back to other empires on many continents where isloationism caused them to be absorb, or to go into a form of expansionism either for resources or by accident.

So, I ask again for yours and others opinions, who can we walk the line of not going into isolationism and still resolve this issue?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Fair question, Rich.  I hope I can give a fair answer.
> 
> A company is different than a foreign goverment. One reason why, governments have much more access to capital and strategic resources that can be used to affect the open market or otherwise influence operations in a way that an independent business cannot do. For example, I'm not crazy about the fact that the German government currently owns a substantial part of our wireless communications network.
> 
> Outside of your question. there just seems to be a lot going on that is under our noses. The story originally discussed 6 ports, yet now there is news indicating that there are 21 ports. The President and congress say they don't know, yet Secy Rice says this was vetted for 3 months. The desire for a Free Trade pact with the UAE is going largely unnoticed. Maybe that is just my perception, but I cannot figure it all out.




Lady Kaur,

I wonder, if it was the British Government or the Chinese Government or the Japanese Government if it would be an issue?

As to this topic, I think a topic of Free Trade is at issue, not jsut the ports.  While some make it out that the UAE could have acess to get stuff into our countries, while I think the local importer would be a bigger problem, in my opinion. 

As to what is going on under our noses. Yes it is really interesting. I am sure we sold Tanks and Plance the KSA (* Kingdom of Saudia Arabia *), as well as Quwait, and possible to the UAE as well. We have trained them on the equipment we have designed for ourselves. This would be more dangerous in my opinion then the ports. But once again that is a security issue, and it seems that this thread is more about Free Trade and what should the USA do about it. Am I wrong?


----------



## Carol (Feb 25, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Lady Kaur,
> 
> I wonder, if it was the British Government or the Chinese Government or the Japanese Government if it would be an issue?


 
It's an issue to me personally. I don't support the idea of having a foreign govermnment taking control over part of our infrastructure.  I don't like the fact that the governments of China and Singapore control US ports, either.

However, I can't help but draw a paralell to the fact that the UK, Chinese, and Japanese government have not been one of the 3 countries that supported the Taliban regime, nor have they been a country that has been known for harboring funds for terrorists.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to this topic, I think a topic of Free Trade is at issue, not jsut the ports. While some make it out that the UAE could have acess to get stuff into our countries, while I think the local importer would be a bigger problem, in my opinion.


 
Interesting.  I hadn't considered the trade issue from the angle of the local importers.  I don't know enough about the trade situation to have an informed opinion one way or another.   



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to what is going on under our noses. Yes it is really interesting. I am sure we sold Tanks and Plance the KSA (* Kingdom of Saudia Arabia *), as well as Quwait, and possible to the UAE as well. We have trained them on the equipment we have designed for ourselves. This would be more dangerous in my opinion then the ports. But once again that is a security issue, and it seems that this thread is more about Free Trade and what should the USA do about it. Am I wrong?


 
Free Trade seems ensconced to the issue.  I first learned about the potential free trade pact with the UAE by reading about it in Asian newspapers.  I'm concered as to why this hasn't been discussed much locally....or have I just been spending too much time at the dojo and missed it all?  I agree, a separate post on Free Trade would be a great idea.  I would love to hear some other folks input on the subject.

But as far as security, yes I see a risk.  The UAE is an island nation.  Shipping is in their heritage. I have no doubt that they know how to run a port.  I also believe that they have largely behaved as allies to the US.

But that is today.  I don't think these port contracts last for a few months, or a year or two.  I don't think I am being unrealistic in believing tha these will last for decades.  My concern is about tomorrow.  I see a flashpoint.

Our alliance with the UAE is based on guns and oil.  We arm them, they fuel us.  Like many of our allies, we do not sell them the best weapons that we can produce.  But, we have one ally that does receive the best weapons we can make.  That ally is Israel.  

I also see an economic risk.

Not long ago, there was a Longshoreman's strike in California.  This comparatively minor and absolutely non-terrorism-related disruption still had an impact on our economy.

The terrorists have made it clear that hurting the US economy is one of their goals.  

If there was a disruption, any kind of disruption, at one of our ports...my speculation is that a disruption at a port controlled by the UAE govermnent, would have a worse effect on Wall Street than a disruption at a port controlled by a Danish corporation.  I hope I'm wrong.

Carol


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So, I ask again for yours and others opinions, who can we walk the line of not going into isolationism and still resolve this issue?


 
When Toyota cars, built in American, are able to smuggle chemical and biological weapons into a major American city undetected, then domestic production by a foreign company should be halted.

Why is it that I am only present a choice of complete free trade or complete isolationism?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> If your only problem you have with them being foreign, then why did you spefically point out that two of the hijackers come from the U.A.E.? Or everything else about the U.A.E.?


 
Don, try to read this next quote slowly. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The arguments I raise *are being made by politicians* of all stripes.


 
Now, please, read the newspapers. And see who is re-iterating the fact that of the hi-jackers nationality.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don, try to read this next quote slowly.



I think I would rather read the original quote instead.



> (Edit) Oh, OK ... claiming security is 'non-existant' is a bit too hyperbolic. The United States Coast Guard has stated their security budgeting of 700 million dollars is approximately 1/5th of what is required to actually secure the Ports to a level equivilent with their charter. ..... So, our ports are 20% secure. (End Edit).
> 
> But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan, there are some who have concerns.
> 
> ...



I do not know if every republican you listed has the same concerns with all four points you posted prior to their names. But even so, if you do not share their view- why raise those concerns about the nationality of two of the hijackers at all?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> When Toyota cars, built in American, are able to smuggle chemical and biological weapons into a major American city undetected, then domestic production by a foreign company should be halted.



Let me ask you this. Contact California and ask what percentage of these foreign clean cars get inspected, and how long it takes to get 100 % inspection? Also try to get the normal response from the companies of "Oh we ahve new stuff out that fixes that."

Where as in the old Big three had a much larger inspection rate inthe first year if not with in the first 90 days of production release, and also held to a higher standard. Now that Toyota as you mentioned, is in the Major players in the US, that their Recall rates have increased, and that in teh last few years their JD Power numbers have risen. 

And what is to stop someone from Toyota to ship in something that could be dangerous to the US. You see it is about 60% +/- 10% US assembled, which is not parts made by content or cost, just assembled. 

Are these not also dangerous concerns?



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why is it that I am only present a choice of complete free trade or complete isolationism?



Michael, I am now assumming that one fo the following is true:

1) You do not wish to answer the question, as I have asked you for your Opinion twice (* Three times if you include this. NOWHERE have I stated you must you must choose, but to give your opinion on how to improve or handle the situation. *)

2) You are just playing games with me, AKA being a troll.

3) You are too ignorant to read what I am saying or too biased to understand that I am nto painting you into a corner. I have opened up the discusison for anything, please present, hence the request for your opinion.

*** Note: Ignmorant is not stupid. I am ignorant of a lot of things and when asked I will admit on those subjects, or not get involved in a conversation on said subjects but I will watch and listen and learn.

So, I am really confused with this approach by you. If it is some other option that I have not considered, then could you also explain what it is when you give me your opinion?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 26, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> It's an issue to me personally. I don't support the idea of having a foreign govermnment taking control over part of our infrastructure. I don't like the fact that the governments of China and Singapore control US ports, either.
> 
> However, I can't help but draw a paralell to the fact that the UK, Chinese, and Japanese government have not been one of the 3 countries that supported the Taliban regime, nor have they been a country that has been known for harboring funds for terrorists.
> 
> ...




Lady Kaur,

Since China is in your list, I would be concerned with them more then with UAE. As China is a nuclear power. We have had in the last decade an issue with them and one of our intellignece planes. We have concerns about them and spreading Nuclear technology and or using it in their theater of this planet of spreading to the globe. Where as the UAE are an Islamic country, yes, but they are not a Nuclear Power, nor have they shot down any of our planes. 

While your concern about Government invovlement is valid, I would consider it even more so with China. Yet, the Chinese are not the current bad guys, or the people we have been told to fear. 

In my above History comments, I mentioned Japan awakening teh Sleeping Giant. Could it be possible that the Western Culture and USA specifically has awaken another Giant, not one of borders, but one of religion and of faith. 

If that is the real issue here, then I can see your concerns for one could argue that the Chinese would use logic and reason before using nukes. While a renegade or supported terrorist is a person of faith, and use their own logic, based upon their beliefs. In this case it is hard to predict what a person of this type will react too. 

In that case, I say recognize the issue and try to handle it within the public atmosphere, only remember that this now looks like and is hard to argue against it being discriminatory against Muslims. Which could be the topic of a whole new thread in itself, about has our culture gone to far in one direction to try to not offend others?

I am not saying any of your points are wrong, jsut trying to better understand them. 

Thanks


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think I would rather read the original quote instead.
> 
> I do not know if every republican you listed has the same concerns with all four points you posted prior to their names. But even so, if you do not share their view- why raise those concerns about the nationality of two of the hijackers at all?


 
Don ... I did not raise the issue. I indicated (although not clearly enough, apparently), that these are the problems that politicians have with the deal. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/national/main1343339.shtml



> Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.
> 
> "It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
> 
> The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said. "There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said.


 
Man, if that is not a high-enough 'higher authority' for you, Don, I don't know what will satisify.

Former Governor Kean was the Chairman of the 911 Commission. The 911 Commission reviewed the country's preparation for Terrorism and made several recommendations. There was a big report. It was a best seller. He is a Republican from New Jersey.


Might I suggest you read "How to Lie with Footnotes" from the Al Franken Book 'Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them'. He scoriates Ann Coulter for ascribing everything printed in a News Paper to the Newspaper --- much like what you are doing to me.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 26, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this. Contact California and ask what percentage of these foreign clean cars get inspected, and how long it takes to get 100 % inspection? Also try to get the normal response from the companies of "Oh we ahve new stuff out that fixes that."
> 
> Where as in the old Big three had a much larger inspection rate inthe first year if not with in the first 90 days of production release, and also held to a higher standard. Now that Toyota as you mentioned, is in the Major players in the US, that their Recall rates have increased, and that in teh last few years their JD Power numbers have risen.
> 
> ...


 
Rich Parsons, I have no idea what you are saying or what argument you are presenting, or what about my answers to your questions is unclear. I am attempting to answer them as clearly as I can, but then you report I am not answering. 

I'm sorry to have been unable to sufficiently address your questions in a way that you can understand my reply. 

Good luck,

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Feb 26, 2006)

dobermann said:
			
		

> as being not american, i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future. like financining bin-laden, giving WMD to iraq and other ventures..
> 
> maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead, maybe you are right. but things that happened to poor civilians and brave soldiers on homeland and different countries is a lot selfinduced. i dont say its "americans" in general, but the government has done a lot of f***-ups. sometimes it worries me a lot. look at the nuclear war thread. or scholars for 911. maybe thats already BS, but still. torture for freedom? pre-emptive strikes? hey man, get real, if i was hit "pre-emptively" you would have to expect an answer. and if it was planes..
> 
> how come the almighty US want to hand over their ports (remember the USS "whatever that name was" <- ignorant european), to the nation that most terrorists from 911 were from. this is weird!.


 
Dobberman-


> as being not american, i see that the U.S. has done the one or other thing that turned against them in future. like financining bin-laden, giving WMD to iraq and other ventures..


As being American I can tell you that the U.S. government, under this and pretty much all previous administrations, has done things that ended up running counter to our own ideals and best-interest in the long run. As being an American who reads and pays attention to world events, however, I can tell you that we are in NO way alone in these types of mistakes and that we hardly lead the way in these errors. It happens to all countries and governments....because they're all lead by Human beings. We just hope to learn from these things and alter our choices in the future based on previous experience. Failure in these things is NOT an "American" problem, it's a Human problem. 
Last I knew, European governments were also lead by Human beings who make mistakes. One issue is, however, being the last remaining superpower, our actions are spot-lighted on the world stage...and because of that power...our mistakes tend to have some pretty strong consequences.


> maybe you think i am a european, ignorant dickhead, maybe you are right.


Huh??  I do think you're a European....because you've said so. Ignorant? Maybe. Should I also now think you are a "Dickhead" ...because you've said so? 
It doesn't make any sense to get all personal in this. It makes even less sense to use this false self belittlement in trying to make this point. I don't think it's an error in language but in judgement and taste.
IF you are a "dickhead" (not a very mature term)...keep it to yourself.


> things that happened to poor civilians and brave soldiers on homeland and different countries is a lot selfinduced.


OK.... the things that happen to brave soldiers is self induced. Come on, employ some logic here. OF COURSE what happens to a soldier is brought about by his and his governments actions. If I sign up for military service (which is very commendable!) then I KNOW that I'm offering to put myself in harms way, to do dangerous work that doesn't just have the chance but the probability of life threatening danger. Fine. Self induced. 
But: as an American who lost someone (a poor civilian) who was in the 2nd Tower on 911, I'd _*LOVE*_ to hear how what she did (go to work, be an American, live responsibly) brought about her terrible death. PLEASE.... elaborate. What did she do to "self-induce" the plane that tore through her floor of the 2nd tower??? HINT: If you say she brougt it on herself, if you can't or won't validate what you said...then 





> ignorant dickhead


...in my opinion, would only scratch the surface of accuracy!



> i dont say its "americans" in general, but the government has done a lot of f***-ups.


Of course you don't. Not "in general". I suppose that Switzerland would do SO much better at everything if THEY had as much power, clout and decision making gravitas as the United States does...right? You've claimed that we'd think you were a dickhead and ignorant.... but you don't judge us...generally....huh??
I will say......you lack congruency. 


> look at the nuclear war thread.


No. 
Tell me what about the 'nuclear war thread' concerns you and applies in this manner. IF you are going to reference something else, then QUOTE it and explain. I'm not going to go do some research just because you're not able to formulate thoughts and make a point with it but just want to try to make a point by saying "Go look here".
No. Make your point...
or don't. 


> scholars for 911. maybe thats already BS, but still.


Huh??
If it's "BS" then Why apply it here? If it's bunk then it's bunk and doesn't support anything you say...just another thing for you to point at and say "Look here". ...and then when we look there, we'll see "BS"? 
..but still. 


> pre-emptive strikes? hey man, get real, if i was hit "pre-emptively" you would have to expect an answer. and if it was planes..


Pre-emptive strikes are not launched at a person, nor a country, in which they were not themselves giving Every indication that they meant to strike out themselves. That's what makes it "Pre-emptive".... look the word up, it means to prevent them from taking action. 
Also: IF you were hit by the United States of America "Preemptively"... then you'd first have things w/in your borders just Blow up....important things, needful things...major roads, bridges, communications, power, air strips....etc.. This would be done by dozens of special forces types that would already be IN your country. Then there'd be laser guided missles, Tommahawks.... powerful missles that'd be fired from hundreds of miles away at sea, hit you in further 'important & needful' places with a lot of destruction...and they'd come in under most radar, and come in too fast to stop. Then there'd be precision bombardment by stealth bombers ((...remember, "if it was planes"... yes.....what if??)) which you could neither detect until too late nor stop (due to their altitude and their speed) and they'd drop precision bombs into places that you really wouldn't want them...places that'd shut you off from any ability to retaliate. All of this would be in JUST the first couple of hours. 
Honestly, I don't think you'd be Able to "answer"...not with anything significant or noteworthy. 
Luckily... we only strike pretty horrible places/people in such a manner. Not nice people in nice places like your country.... who is an ally of ours. 
             (Glad to have this "Theoretical" debate though)

NOW: if you are talking Nulclear... then it's a rediculous argument. It's like asking who wants to be obliterated first and who wants to go second. That's why I think that a Nuclear arsenal in the hands of a country that is involved on the world stage (USA, Russia, E.U....etc.) finds it's power in THREAT. But in the hands of a country that does Not care about Global political impact and who has been embroiled in Hundreds of years of war and killing and says that it'd like to obliterate other peoples in other countries when those people have not aggressed on them (I'm thinking of places like Iran) ...then that Threat is to EVERYBODY, and MUST be shut down. IF it needs to be done "Preemptively"....ok. Because to "preempt" means to prevent by taking the initiative. BUT: This would only be done when it is believed that a similar attack (nuclear, in this instance) is immanent.....not 'just because'. 



> how come the *almighty US* want to hand over their ports (remember the USS "whatever that name was" <- ignorant european), to the nation that most terrorists from 911 were from. this is weird! i dont know whats going on, but i am sure, it wont be a good thing


"Almighty US"??? 
no........that's not inflamatory, is it??
The US is not "handing over" ports to anyone. There are independant businesses in the US that are in charge of managing the commerce of those ports. These ports aren't being handed over to "Countries" as you've said, but to other businesses. It is a BUSINESS, and it has NOTHING to do with security. Those in charge of security (The US Coast Guard, the FBI, NSA, Homeland security and US customs) are still JUST AS MUCH in charge of security in these ports....and will stay in charge. That's not changing. Ownership of the "ports" isn't changing. Just who's managing the commerce. Our government is not socialist (though some would like that) and not communist.... commerce is the pervue of the people, not the government. ALSO: the people working at these docks, even for this very company being taken over...IS NOT changing. Only the people who OWN it. The same dock workers... everything. 

I will agree with you on ONE thing dobberman, you did get one thing correct.


> i dont know whats going on


 
and I'm not implying you're an "ignorant European", just ignorant. (a state of not knowing, not a put down)
IF you want to say it's because you're European....that's your problem.


Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich Parsons, I have no idea what you are saying or what argument you are presenting, or what about my answers to your questions is unclear. I am attempting to answer them as clearly as I can, but then you report I am not answering.
> 
> I'm sorry to have been unable to sufficiently address your questions in a way that you can understand my reply.
> 
> ...




Mike,


Let me try one more time. 

I made some points about Isolationism and Expansionism.

I asked for opinions.

You got upset for me asking Someone and not you specifically, so I addressed your side step, but you have not answered the question. You also made comments that you had an idea that was neither.

I then reasked the question and then you made it sound like I had painted you into a corner with only two options.

I replied that I had not and asked you just to choose, but to give me your opinion on this question and how can you come up wiht some ideas.

You then side stepped again with Ross comments, and quoting some recent political history.

I then replied and made comments about history myself to give the perspective of recent history and made mention that I could go further back if required.

In there I also recognized a point of yours and asked for opinions.


In return I get obfuscation and redirect.

So, I keep asking my question, that you have  not even answered indirectly, you have only side stepped.

How would you handle these two isses, and yes I recognize there are other posiibilities, hence my asking for your opinion. At this time I will even accept that you have no idea, only that you think their should be one in theory, even if you have no idea. 

I am just looking for a answer, not redirection, not attacking, no smoke and mirrors.

Also if I have missed you answer, then please give me a link or quote it again so I can search on it and see if there is an answer already posted in this thread or even in another thread.

Thank you


----------



## Carol (Feb 26, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Lady Kaur,
> 
> Since China is in your list, I would be concerned with them more then with UAE. As China is a nuclear power. We have had in the last decade an issue with them and one of our intellignece planes. We have concerns about them and spreading Nuclear technology and or using it in their theater of this planet of spreading to the globe. Where as the UAE are an Islamic country, yes, but they are not a Nuclear Power, nor have they shot down any of our planes.
> 
> While your concern about Government invovlement is valid, I would consider it even more so with China. Yet, the Chinese are not the current bad guys, or the people we have been told to fear.




Your concerns about the Chinese government are shared, and your points are well taken. I am very concerned about the PRC over the coming decade, and am not happy with the lack of attention focused on our relations with the PRC and the results thereof.  

My points have been directed to the UAE as that is where the current story is.  It was not meant to slight any concerns about the PRC...although...such an exploration would be an interesting topic for (yet another) thread.

The UAE is a Muslim state, agreed, but I don't think I brought religion or my own perception of religion towards the ports deal. I think the reasons I stated hold up without taking religion in to account.  




> In my above History comments, I mentioned Japan awakening teh Sleeping Giant. Could it be possible that the Western Culture and USA specifically has awaken another Giant, not one of borders, but one of religion and of faith.
> 
> If that is the real issue here, then I can see your concerns for one could argue that the Chinese would use logic and reason before using nukes. While a renegade or supported terrorist is a person of faith, and use their own logic, based upon their beliefs. In this case it is hard to predict what a person of this type will react too.
> 
> In that case, I say recognize the issue and try to handle it within the public atmosphere, only remember that this now looks like and is hard to argue against it being discriminatory against Muslims. Which could be the topic of a whole new thread in itself, about has our culture gone to far in one direction to try to not offend others?


 
To be honest, I haven't drilled the situation down to an individual level.  As my concern about port control is at the state level, my concerns have been at a higher-than-individual level.  I hope that makes sense.

My concerns are neither exclusive nor indicative of the Islamic world, at least, the Islamic world that I see from my limited point of view.

The vast majority of Muslim states did NOT support the Taliban. Yet, the UAE was one of only three that did. 

The UAE has harbored funds for terrorists and has a mixed record in the fight against terror...or at least, so say some very strong allegations.   Other Muslim states have not apparantly done so or not been accused of doing so. 

There are Muslim states have full diplomatic ties with our ally, Israel. The UAE does not support Israel, nor have they allowed Israel to make any diplomatic inroads (unlike other non-supporting Muslim states, such as Qatar).

It seems to me that a flashpoint of trouble is our selling of unstrictured arms to a country that is not recognized by the government that is poised to control some of our ports.  

This is alone is a picture that makes me question how wise it is for said government to take over part of our infrastructure for an unknown amount of time that probably measures in to the decades.  

Coupled with my concern over what President Bush has been saying and not saying about the deal...and that makes me very worried. 

Ultimately I am not convinced that having the UAE government control part of our infrastructure is necessarily the best thing for our country in the coming years.   I'm listening for a compelling reason for this change...but I haven't heard it yet.
 


> I am not saying any of your points are wrong, jsut trying to better understand them.
> 
> Thanks


 
Thanks to you too.

If no one ever corrected me or disagreed with me, then I would never learn.   Discourse is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 26, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Thanks to you too.
> 
> If no one ever corrected me or disagreed with me, then I would never learn.   Discourse is a beautiful thing.



Lady Kaur,

I see your points and understand why you posted as you did. 

Thanks


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 27, 2006)

I still do not see why the nationality of two of the hijackers on 9-11 should have been mentioned in this thread. I still say that having people opposing this sale mentioning that fact as a reason is racist and shows the US in a bad light to the world.

The simple facts are that the UAE has been one of our best allies in the region, it is one of the most liberal states in the Arab world and the staff of the company comes mainly from Europe anyway.

Nobody had a problem with a non-American company running our ports until the idea of an Arab country running one came along. After a whole lot of screaming about the UAE, some of the opponents seem to be retreating into a 'all foriegn goverments' stance. 

The rest of the world, based on what I read here in Japan, does not seem fooled. 

It angers me that sensationalizing media types and Democrats have fanned the flames of xenophobia to increase sales and increase their chances in the next election. I am angered that so many gutless wonders in the Republican party can't find the backbone to tell the truth and instead join in on the talk. They seem to think that they can talk all they want and appease the voters while the president will cover them with a veto if needed. But what they say is being reported overseas. All these folks on both sides of the political isle are being quoted in overseas media and the picture all these statements make is that Americans never will treat Arabs as anything other that terrorists. Not even our best ally in the area.

The International Herald Tribune had this quote,



> Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the National Govenors Association, said the deal "put a lot of elected officials in an impossible situation. The visceral reaction they got from their constituents left them no choice in opposing it."



Hence my reason for calling the Republicans speaking against this gutless wonders. McCain gets kudos from me for speaking out against people making all these accusations without knowing the full story. I can even imagine a few Democrats might want to do the right thing, but are carried away by the tsunami of xenophobia. But Clinton's attempt to seize more power for the goverment after fanning the flames of bigotry just can't be forgiven.

The company has put off the sale until their is a review. The democrats probably see it as a chance to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the American people and attack the president on the talk shows, the Republican gutless wonders see it as a way of saying they listen to the people and really are concerned with national security and the rest of the world _knows_ that this would never had happend to a European company.


----------



## Carol (Feb 27, 2006)

Don, 

Why do you think this the best option for this country over the coming decades?

I can't guarantee that I can be sold, but I'm willing to listen.

Respectfully, 
Carol


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 27, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Don,
> 
> Why do you think this the best option for this country over the coming decades?
> 
> ...



Valid question.

The simple truth is that American companies pretty much dropped out the running a few decades ago. Companies based in other countries have just done so much better. We really do not have much complaints about the way things have been run so far. We have concerns that there might not be enough security, but that is not really their fault and there has been no major problems traced back to a lack of security at the ports now.

In short, I do not see any reason _not_ to let it go through. Unless you want the goverment to stick their fingers in everything else, I do not see why a matter that does not involve American security should be any concern of theirs.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Nobody had a problem with a non-American company running our ports until the idea of an Arab country running one came along. After a whole lot of screaming about the UAE, some of the opponents seem to be retreating into a 'all foriegn goverments' stance.


 
I posit that "Nobody" had a clue that foreign companies were running these terminals until this story broke.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> The simple truth is that American companies pretty much dropped out the running a few decades ago. Companies based in other countries have just done so much better. We really do not have much complaints about the way things have been run so far.


 
As I understand it, 30% of American port traffic is handled by foreign companies. That leaves 70% of port traffic handled by American companies. That hardly seems to meet the standard you propose of having "pretty much dropped out" of the process.

As for the level of complaints, so far, 60 minutes last evening aired quiet a few complaints. A former Coast Guard Commander, one Steven Flynn, has complained at least 15 times before congress.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1344473.shtml


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I posit that "Nobody" had a clue that foreign companies were running these terminals until this story broke.



That is kind of my point, is it not? For decades ports have been run by overseas companies both here and in other countries and there has never been a complaint or problem. Some folks with a political agenda start screaming about "arabs' running the ports and now the entire world is looking on as Americans go nuts over the idea.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I understand it, 30% of American port traffic is handled by foreign companies. That leaves 70% of port traffic handled by American companies. That hardly seems to meet the standard you propose of having "pretty much dropped out" of the process.



I do not know what sources you are using, but mine come from Simon Romero and Heather Timmons writing for the New York Times and printed in the Japanese edition of the International Herald Tribune under the title "U.S. companies weighed anchor on ports years ago."

It is fairly fascinating reading. Among other things it points out that,



> Transmitting shipping orders electronically to some American ports does not neccesarily save time because the orders need to be rekeyed into the ports' computer system, a concession to unions trying to preserve jobs.



Now, if your headquarters was based in a country with this situation, would you have a disadvantage competing with a country where they could take care of orders quicker?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 27, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Nobody had a problem with a non-American company running our ports until the idea of an Arab country running one came along. .


 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I posit that "Nobody" had a clue that foreign companies were running these terminals until this story broke.


 


			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> That is kind of my point, is it not? For decades ports have been run by overseas companies both here and in other countries and there has never been a complaint or problem. Some folks with a political agenda start screaming about "arabs' running the ports and now the entire world is looking on as Americans go nuts over the idea.


 
It is very dis-ingenuous to argue that because everyone was ingorant of foreign control of terminals that there was no problem with foreign control of terminals. Do you believe if American citizens were aware of this fact, they would have not demanded action be taken?

We have been told, repeatedly, that after September 11, 2001, the world had changed. Uber-Strategist Karl Rove just a few weeks ago stated the Republican 2006 election strategy is to paint the Democrats as living with a 'Pre-911' mindset. Americans have watched, and paid for,  the 60,000 employee Transportation Security Administration come into being to secure the airports. President Bush argued that only he can keep us safe from the Terrorists in the 2004 election cycle. 

Is it not reasonable to assume that the American Public assumed the President was true to his word (we are a naive bunch), and worked to secure the ports. Do you think the American Public knew Singapore was running operations? 

For more than four years, President Bush and his administration have stoked the fears of terrorism. He has even started to use the phrase 'Radical Islam' to define more clearly the ever unclear 'War on Terror'. 

Seems to me his baby has come home to roost.



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> Gov. Mike Huckabee, an Arkansas *Republican* and chairman of the National Governors Association, said the deal "put a lot of elected officials in an impossible situation." He said, "The *visceral reaction* they got from their constituents left them no choice in opposing it.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is very dis-ingenuous to argue that because everyone was ingorant of foreign control of terminals that there was no problem with foreign control of terminals. Do you believe if American citizens were aware of this fact, they would have not demanded action be taken?



Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The fact that the ports were under the control of a British company was not a state secret. Yet no Democrat or media figure seemed to think there was any story or concern with the idea until some 'sheiks' were somehow tied to the issue.

Certainly, the folks in Australia, France and other countries that have ports run by this company have not voiced any problems. So why is the country that prides itself on open- mindedness and diversity suddenly start screaming about national control of ports a few _decades_ after other countries have taken care of who signs the checks of the workers?


----------



## Carol (Feb 27, 2006)

Don, 

If government interference is bad, then why is an unelected and unaccountable government necessarily better?  


In the spirit of open competition, how can a private firm compete with a goverment wallet? 

Respectfully,
Carol


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 28, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Don,
> 
> If government interference is bad, then why is an unelected and unaccountable government necessarily better?



Because it ain't my goverment.

1- The U.A.E. can't mandate a goverment monopoly on Americans.

2- The U.A.E. can't tax Americans to make up for a poorly run enterprise under their control.

And 3- there is no conflict of interest when the goverment of America enforces laws and rules on a management company they do not run.

So you see, when I rant about goverment interference, I am doing so against the folks that can tax me, throw me in jail, etc.


----------



## Kenpoist (Feb 28, 2006)

Dobbermann, 
Let&#8217;s not start making any personal attacks against us &#8220;Lousy Americans&#8221;. We are not bashing you &#8220;Swiss&#8221; who are famous for making money off of Terrorists and Drug Cartels in your ever popular &#8220;Swiss Bank Accounts&#8221;.  Stick to your &#8220;neutrality&#8221; and making Chocolate.


One would be na&#239;ve to think the Coast Guard is going to protect us at our ports.  Most of our Law Enforcement agencies have become &#8220;reactive&#8221; rather than &#8220;proactive&#8221;. WE still do not have near enough manpower or assets to adequately secure this country.  If there is nothing to indicate suspicion in incoming cargo, than the Coast Guard is not going to respond.  The next attack on the US will likely come through our port&#8217;s (shipping of chem./bio/nuclear material).  Spare me the &#8220;Fee Trade&#8221; argument.  No the Dubai WorldPort will not be in charge of our security, but it only takes someone on the inside (Islamasist sympathizer etc&#8230 to alter the cargo manifest in order slip something through.  This risk is much greater with a Middle Eastern Company, than with a British Company.  9-11 changed everything &#8211;which means we might have to give up the political correctness for a while and do what is necessary to secure this country (Patriot Act/ Wiretapping of Foreign Countries with Terrorist Ties etc..).

Like out borders, the ports are very porous. We need to do a little housekeeping. Let's worry about the security of UNITED STATES and stop worrying about what other countries think of us.


----------



## Carol (Feb 28, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Because it ain't my goverment.
> 
> 1- The U.A.E. can't mandate a goverment monopoly on Americans.
> 
> ...


 
Don,

What I'm reading could be applied to any outsourcing entity...a domestic corp, a foreign corp, a foreign government.

So, if I am reading this correctly this means that by outsourcing control of the ports...

1 and 2 - US Taxpayers do not have to pay the brunt of mismanagement, the shareholders do.  Or Sheiks, for that matter.

3 - such a decision could actually *strengthen *the US Government's hand in regulating our ports.

That makes sense to me.  

But, we aren't referring to just any outsourcer, this is the government of the UAE which has a very staunch anti-Israeli stand.  If I have an Israeli stamp anywhere on my passport, I would not be allowed in to the UAE.  Given the hostility between our two allies, do you think this is the best way for America to go?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 1, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> But, we aren't referring to just any outsourcer, this is the government of the UAE which has a very staunch anti-Israeli stand.  If I have an Israeli stamp anywhere on my passport, I would not be allowed in to the UAE.  Given the hostility between our two allies, do you think this is the best way for America to go?



The business with the stamp and such is pretty much standard for the area with only a few exceptions. Think about how they may feel surrounded by other countries and dependent on them.

And then maybe we should ask if we would be in a better position to influence and modify how they feel and act if they were a partner with us in trade or if refusing them the sale would help. The problem with things like this is that there are layers and layers of things going on that you just can't take in isolation.


----------

