Port Nonsense

[Griff]

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

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

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

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

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

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

[Undertoad]

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

[elSicomoro]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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

[wolf]

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

Originally Posted by wolf

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

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

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


IMPORTANT CUSTOMER

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

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

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

[tw]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tonchi]

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

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

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

Source

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Part of the advantage we have so far in the "war against terror" is that THEY do not look like US. A middle eastern male can't just show up in sensitive areas and not be observed and questioned.

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

There is no war on terror. There is a war on Islam. After all, America invaded Iraq only because something might happen. Because it was them and not us over there. If called a 'Crusade', then you have posted more accurately. If it was a war justified by a smoking gun, then we would be rebuilding Afghanistan and chasing bin Laden. But it is not a "war on terror". There was no terrorism coming out of Iraq. It was coming out of Afghanistan.

Just like the Cole crew thought nothing of a boat with two Arabs approaching and waving, since it was common in the area, what could happen now if hundreds of middle eastern males could be involved in the loading or unloading of ships every day?

If Timothy McVey was Islamic, then that too would have been Arabic terrorism - even though McVey bombed for completely different reasons. Don't fall for hype promoted by propaganda: "war on terror". The justified war is with an organization that we offended - Muslim Brotherhood (not to be confused with a related political party of the same name). In particular - bin Laden who we are make virtually no effort to attack, kill, or capture. An organization that would have completely ignored Americans to instead attack their original enemies - Saddam, Assad, Mubarak, the King of Jordan, the Saudi Royal family, etc.

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

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

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

[BigV]

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

[Undertoad]

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

[glatt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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