Port Nonsense

[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?

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by tw

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?

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

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

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

but we hardly have the woods and mountains HERE crawling with armed religious extremists.

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

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

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Companies are motivated by profits, but governments have other agendas that change as often as the people running them.

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

No, I don't think that. But I KNOW that an Arab company will hire every one of their relatives they can cram onto the payroll in the management/administrative area. That is how they live and do business over there. Do you really think Bin Laden's father had so many jobs that needed doing that he hired all 50 of his sons and their entire families? Do you think that all 10,000 relatives of the Saudi royal family really are qualified for the positions they hold and deserve the money they are paid?

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

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

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

Using that same reasoning, then America is also a terrorist nation. It’s called containers. They also pass through the US with nothing more than paperwork to inspect.

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

[Perry Winkle]

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

I'm surprised the universe didn't implode.

Originally Posted by tw

I believe you are confusing Saudi concepts with Arab.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

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

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Huh?? I can generally wade through your verbiage, tw, but you've lost me here. So lots of foreign companies might be shipping God knows what to the US.

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

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

The intended version said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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

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

[Perry Winkle]

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

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by wolf

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

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

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

[Griff]

Originally Posted by wolf

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

Arab companies? Feds are worried about the mafia at ports

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

They were talking about the mafia.