US Port's to be secured by UAE?
- Thread starter Kenpoist
- Start date
lady_kaur said:
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
Grandmaster
Don Roley said:
I posit that "Nobody" had a clue that foreign companies were running these terminals until this story broke.
Don Roley 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.
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
michaeledward 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.
michaeledward said:
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,
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
Grandmaster
Don Roley said:
michaeledward said:
Don Roley 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?
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:
michaeledward said:
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?
lady_kaur said:
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.
OP
OP
Kenpoist
Green Belt
Dobbermann,
Let’s not start making any personal attacks against us “Lousy Americans”. We are not bashing you “Swiss” who are famous for making money off of Terrorists and Drug Cartels in your ever popular “Swiss Bank Accounts”. Stick to your “neutrality” and making Chocolate.
One would be naïve to think the Coast Guard is going to protect us at our ports. Most of our Law Enforcement agencies have become “reactive” rather than “proactive”. 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’s (shipping of chem./bio/nuclear material). Spare me the “Fee Trade” argument. No the Dubai WorldPort will not be in charge of our security, but it only takes someone on the inside (Islamasist sympathizer etc…
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 –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.
Let’s not start making any personal attacks against us “Lousy Americans”. We are not bashing you “Swiss” who are famous for making money off of Terrorists and Drug Cartels in your ever popular “Swiss Bank Accounts”. Stick to your “neutrality” and making Chocolate.
One would be naïve to think the Coast Guard is going to protect us at our ports. Most of our Law Enforcement agencies have become “reactive” rather than “proactive”. 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’s (shipping of chem./bio/nuclear material). Spare me the “Fee Trade” argument. No the Dubai WorldPort will not be in charge of our security, but it only takes someone on the inside (Islamasist sympathizer etc…
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 –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.
Don Roley said:
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?
lady_kaur said:
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.
Similar threads
