that is my new favorite emoticon

It's fitting for trying to have a discussion with Flasch. :D

i hate when im the last comment on a page and I sit there refreshing waiting for a response and eventually see I missed that a new page started/....

There's got to be a better word for those than 'emoticon' or 'smiley,' right?

Btw, more fun port stuff:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031100718.html


--

And yes, the opposition to UAE was entirely xenophobia. It was totally irrational with hardly any fact behind it at all. The fact that DPW is CEO'ed by a white guy from Jersey, and it would be one of a few port loading & unloading companies in the US that are controled by foriegn governments, and it is an incredibly modern and Western looking Mid East power, and the US doesn't have any port companies (so the question is who is DPW going to hand this over to)... ends up being mob politics. Bunch of xenophobic morons in this country.

Don't need to call you naive, you are doing that perfectly on your own.


Have been there for some time. I'm just waiting for the others to catch up. :)

The mob have had control of some of the ports for many decades now (going back to the 40s), wonder what's the urgency now and why the DoJ think this is something new?

Bucc:

i told you my reasons 70% or so of the US agrees. Xenophobe - no, wanting to protect our own borders now and in the future - yes. How is that a bad thing, righty?

If you cant fathom that someone could come to this conclusion without being racist than you are spun.

there is nothing wrong with having a high expectation....Im sorry you dont. It is on those expectations that these politicians have made the status quo.

You (and the rest of us) have no idea of how are ports are or are not being protected, nor do you know what it would take - in actuality - to affect change one way or the other.

Just to nitpick, but I don't think "port protection" is being, or ever has been, outsourced. It's "port administration" that's the purview of private companies. As far as I've read, the Coast Guard (the poor, underfunded, understaffed Coast Guard) that's in charge of port protection.

First off, I am glad that the Democratic Party is finally showing the cojones to play machiavellian politics for a change.

But Flasch, I'm a little surprised that you can't see this for what it is--a political play by the Democrats, eagerly playing upon xenophobic tendencies of everyday Americans. Many political, intelligence, and security analysts I respect have gone on record as saying that the DPW ownership of US port operations would not be that big of a deal, security-wise.

If you had bothered to do your reasearch on the UAE, you will see how the UAE's economic policies and their position as a major financial hub has put the UAE in a position where they cannot afford extremists to have any influence on the country. UAE social and fiscal policies have left their population more worldly and wealthy than their neighbors in Saudi Arabia--thus popular extremism is not a problem in the UAE as in it's neighbor to the south. Dubai has done a very good job of building up itself as a financial center and it is certainly not the terrorist backwater you envision. I am a little surprised that you would accept stereotyped images at face value without digging deeper.

This is not directed at you Flasch, but I do think that racism does play some part in the general population's opposition to this deal. However, what is more worrisome is that ignorance is an even greater driver. The famed American ignorance of the world around us is more of a danger to us than DP World will ever be.

Klingler it isnt just about today. Its about 4 years from now when a war is going on involving Israel. What do we do then when the UAE says, like the Taliban before, "We are going to side with our arab brethren." Our ports are shut down or perhaps, more sinisterly, for weeks they allow all sorts of stuff to go on on the ports because that famed and underfunded Coast Guard becomes spread thin overnight. This would go for any country. If we have China running a bunch of stuff and we have to step into a dispute between them and Taiwan, isnt it better to NOT have the Chinese running strategic assets? It simply doesnt make sense.

I understand what politics is today up on the hill but that will not persuade me to lower my standards or expectations. I expect them to do what is right, and over the past years I have hammered both sides of the aisle when they do something that doesnt pass the smell test, from Delay and Abramoff, to Reid and Abramoff, to the Duke in California.

This dealing, even if the politician doesnt believe in it and is simply pandering to the majority, is good for the security of America. In the long run it wont hurt our dealings economically with anyone as they all need and want our dollars, but it could have been substantially painful in the future should things in the world change. They've changed before and they certainly will change again, just look at S. America.

DOLA:

See, I dont agree with this because its not foreign governments control (at this point according to the article), just foreign investors. Thats fine:


Foreign Airline Control Raises Concerns

Thu Mar 9, 5:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Resistance to foreign ownership of U.S. port operations spilled over into the aviation arena when a congressional committee told the Bush administration to postpone a plan to allow more foreign control of domestic airlines.
ADVERTISEMENT

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday passed a resolution directing the Transportation Department to hold off for 120 days on its proposal to give foreign investors in U.S. airlines more latitude to influence management decisions.

"The committee believes that the U.S. aviation industry is part of our critical infrastructure as are the ports," said the resolution, which passed by voice vote and doesn't have the force of law.

The Republican-controlled Congress rebelled against
President Bush by threatening to block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at several U.S. ports. The company on Thursday said it would transfer the U.S. operation to an American entity.

The port controversy fueled opposition to a proposed regulation that would give foreign airline investors more control over marketing, flight routes and what kinds of planes to fly. Non-U.S. citizens still couldn't own more than 25 percent of a U.S. airline's voting stock.

The Transportation Department issued a statement on Thursday saying its proposal "would require U.S. citizens to maintain control of all decisions affecting the security, safety and national defense obligations of domestic airlines."

Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., and James Oberstar, D-Minn., are sponsoring legislation backed by 158 other members to prevent the regulation from going into effect for at least a year and to give Congress the right to veto it.

Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii sponsored a similar bill.

I have to give a :rolleyes: to this. The UAE is as far from the Taliban as the US is from Torquemada. UAE runs itself as a business. It didn't exactly attack us during the US-Iraq war (both of them). I mean hell, they are several large Christian churches and schools in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Try finding that in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

Attempts to box in all Arab states as being the same won't work.

Just wait until to Flasch learns about major foreign-owned (esp. Chinese) entities within our financial institutions. Would one agree that the potential for economic terrorism is much greater and devastating than physical terrorism?

I saw in the paper this morning this quip, "Never stand between a cameraman and a Congressperson in an election year."

Hell, I wonder if Flasch realizes that Dubai owns 2% of Daimler Chrysler, making it the 3rd largest shareholder in the company ;).

Now, you just fed his fears about the immorality of corporations! :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

But your concern is with security. Do you really feel that you would be that much safer if Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whomever were running the show? It would seem to make more sense to raise issue with the underfunded mandates saddling our Homeland Security apparatus. After all, they are who is ultimately responsible for port security.

I disagree profoundly with your second statement I quoted. This does have the potential to hurt the US economically, since this signals to foreign investors that the United States is not politically stable enough to guarantee safe investment in our country in some sectors. I also see the potential for American multinationals to face similar politically-based resistance in its foreign dealings, in kind.

Any potential restrictions on port operation ownership by foreign entities going forward does nothing to address legitimate port security issues, while undermining US political and economic clout. I don't really see much good (for the US) coming out of this.

thats fine, its not effecting our security directly.

well were going to have to agree to disagree. They will continue to invest here, without a doubt. I also agree that homeland security is being paid lip service instead of true development to be able to protect us. I definitely feel safer.


regarding the comparison between UAE and Taliban, that wasn't my point and I apologize for not being more clear. I was drawing a hypothesis that someday, if a war were to erupt and countries had to choose sides, which side would a country choose in the future? Would UAE stand next to us or Iran? Would they stand with Israel or Syria? We dont know, we cant be sure and that is where proper strategic calculations come into play. I dont believe this administration does enough well minded calculations about what will happen in the future regarding foreign play and what they have done has been wrong or sorely lacking.

One thing at a time...there already "terrorizing" our dollar, which apparently we've made statements trying to get them to revalue their currency but have made no headway at all. Im not a fan of them hordeing our dollars either but im not learned enough to know all of the ins and outs of that issue.

I call BS.

1.It is irrational, because there isn't any substance to the objections, other than They are an Arab country, and our ports are a big weakness. That isn't substance.

2. It is contemptuous to oppose the deal that was proposed without having the slightest shred of evidence that amounted to more than supposition and predisposed ideas regarding an arab nation.

3. This is rationalization in its purest form.

I don't understand how anyone can't see that the opposition to this deal was either politically motivated or xenophobic/racist in nature.

because it doesnt make sense to let ANY foreign country have control over our ports. It has nothing to do with ARAB, in 5 years we could be at war with Chechnya, they should not run our ports either. It has no BS in it, it makes common sense that 70% of Americans recognize, but incredibly on this board unlike the real world it still falls along Partisan lines. That baffles me.

It is completely rational, I explain it


2. there is plenty of evidence that this was not properly vetted and when one so it raised more questions about the past. some have argued that there are 2 UAE's...the one pre-9/11 and the one after. well 9/11 was not that long ago...at least for me.

3. is this the other side of the coin or sarcasm?

Or maybe a war between the US and Iraq? Especially when you consider the vastly farther differences in culture, religion and the shit Iran has pulled in and around the Straits of Hormuz in the past its pretty obvious to anyone looking deeper than the Arab in UAE that they would pick our side there. Its that type of ignorance about the UAE that makes you and your side look bad here.

but the world changes, and more faster today than ever. Look just 5 years ago they were fans of the Taliban BUT Ill bet if you poll them today they would say that they are not. It simply is silly to outsoure strategic assets to anyone other than our own government.....its silly, and were lucky that in WW2 we didnt have that sort of attitude, i mean look what Switzerland did with all of the stuff tat was outsourced to them. Its a bad idea, PERIOD, no matter what their attitudes or opinions are today ESPECIALLY considering how poorly they ran their own ports. North Korea, Libya, and Iran must thank the heavans that AQK was able to send stuff through there so easily...is that ignorance or negligence there bish?

More like 10-20 years ago, but ok. Flasch is espousing a point of view taken by Odysseus in Sophocles' Ajax, which I may be exploring as a major school assignment. That's the only reason I'm still following this thread.

thats ok, i get numbers wrong sometimes...this time, im right:



UAE cuts ties with Taliban

September 22, 2001 Posted: 8:21 PM EDT (0021 GMT)
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article

Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic ties with Afghanistan's Taliban rulers Saturday as international pressure mounted on the Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

The move leaves only two other countries -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- that still recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government. And diplomatic sources told CNN that Saudi Arabia could make an announcement similar to the UAE's in the coming days.

A UAE diplomat told CNN that over the last few days the Persian Gulf nation had made intensive efforts to get the Taliban government to comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding it hand over bin Laden for a fair international trial. The United States says bin Laden is the prime suspect in the September 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington.

"We were trying to help them find a solution, but we didn't get a response," he said.

The Taliban has refused to hand bin Laden over to U.S. authorities, as President Bush demanded. The U.S. has been moving large numbers of military aircraft into the region and has begun activating military units for possible action against Afghanistan as a result.

While Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said this week that his country had downgraded its relationship with the Taliban even before the September 11 attack, the United States wants the Saudis to cut off all ties. A Saudi diplomat told CNN earlier this week that the Saudis "are 100 percent with America."

"We think this is a real fight," he said. "We are ready to go all the way."

A senior State Department official also told CNN that Saudi Arabia expressed that it was fully on board with U.S. plans for an international coalition against terrorism.

However, the kingdom has not explicitly stated its support for the United States to use its Prince Sultan Air Base in an air war against Afghanistan or any other countries suspected of harboring terrorists. A senior administration official told CNN it was "premature" to secure such support, because plans for a U.S. military campaign are not yet finalized and the United States is not engaging in "hypothetical discussions."

The official also suggested that Saudi Arabia is too far from Afghanistan to be a hub of U.S. military forces. "The mood music coming out of Riyadh is as good as we can hope for," he told CNN.

Pakistan, which has had the closest diplomatic relationship with the neighboring Taliban, is the main conduit for diplomacy with the United States. Even before the attack, Pakistan used its influence with the Taliban in an attempt to help secure the release of eight international aid workers, including two Americans, on trial for charges of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Earlier this week, a Pakistani delegation representing President Pervez Musharraf traveled to Afghanistan and demanded the handover of bin Laden, or face U.S. air strikes.

In addition, a senior Pakistani official tells CNN a letter from Musharraf, delivered by the delegation, demanded the Taliban hand over more than a dozen of bin Laden's associates, close down all terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and allow a neutral country to verify once that was done.

The crisis has plunged Pakistan into a geographical and political nightmare. The country is wedged between Afghanistan on the west and nuclear rival India on the east.

Musharraf has appealed for his people's support and trust as he laid out reasons for joining the United States in an international coalition against terrorism. But protests across the country indicate many Pakistanis do not support the president's alliance with the United States: At least three people were killed in anti-American demonstrations on Friday. Protests were more peaceful on Saturday.

Senior State Department officials and diplomatic sources tell CNN that the Bush administration could lift sanctions against Pakistan as early as Monday for its cooperation.

Also I should point out that while Odysseus and Flasch share certain common assumptions (that our friend today is our enemy tomorrow) I have to think on this issue that Odysseus would come to the opposite conclusion of Flasch. Ajax, on the other hand, would have agreed 100% with Flasch.

They weren't fans of the Taliban anymore than Switzerland is fans of Milosevic, the Iranian Mullahs, Mugabe or Pinochet to name a few. UAE/Dubai has been trying to become the Switzerland of the ME - the regions financial hub that is neutral on other concerns. And largely, they've succeeded. Now you can argue that international banking should be more strict or recognition of dictatorial regimes harder to come by, but you're gonna have to start including a real long list of countries to bar from running port operations if that's gonna be the criteria. I'm not sure where you're going with this. We've apprehended British citizens attempting to blow up airliners, and there is a not insignificant portion of that population that could be termed radically Islamic. Does Britain get included on this list of untrustworthy allies? Or where do you draw that line?Nobody cared about the AQ Khan network then, and for all their rhetoric no government cares seriously about nuclear proliferation today. If the US and everyone else was basically allowing it to happen fairly openly, why would the UAE care? Since the rhetoric went up though in the past 2-3 years, the ports in Dubai have installed some of the strictest monitoring systems w/regards to radiation - better than most American ports.

All this arguing about little points ignores the real point - while there are numerous problems with port security in this country, there is no credible evidence capable of holding up to scrutiny that allowing the UAE to run port operations at some of them would make any terrorist attack more likely. The initial misgivings in most peoples minds were based off at best ignorance and the continuing fervor even after evidence came out is based almost entirely on crude political considerations that are detrimental to us in the long term.

Oh dear god Flasch, please don't get into an arguement about the currency valuation - you're out of your depth on the economics of the issue. Nothing personal, but it isn't a topic one can soundbite, no matter how much a politican may attempt to. You, as a real estate agent, probably benefit more from the Chinese peasant's de facto subsidy of the American consumer than anyone else- don't bite the hand that feeds you.

you hit the nail on the head and I actually spoke today about the fact that I "abhorr the hand that feeds me." Dont think I dont recognize that.

The list is huge, every country except our own.

having a foreign country run another country's ports MUST increase risk at least .01%. It is ridiculous to think otherwise and goes against statistics.

I don't think this is quite falling along partisan lines. Look at Klingler, ISdiqqui, and some of the others. Don't think for a second that QS is supporting your position. You are the one he is talking about falling for soundbite politics.

Seriously. If you think it is OK to treat a company differently simply because of its arab origin, then why is it not OK to treat arab individuals in the same manner? Just because this company is of arab origin is no reason to assume that they are a security risk. Most of the people opposing this haven't done one bit of further investigation. It sounds like a bad idea at first blush...why even consider it more deeply?

because this is NOT a company!! It IS the arm of a foreign government!! There is no difference....Im fine with a foreign private company going with the approval process (which I feel would be rejected) but NOT a foreign government!! Do you see the difference in my view!! It has NOTHING to do with the people and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it is a foreign government.

I don't think that is really a valid distinction. I know it is the government. I don't think it makes one iotta difference.

Rationalization is why this is point is important to you.

Oh and it IS a company.

It is valid to me.

I dont understand this sentence and have reread it

It is only a company in name, like saying the Army Corp of Engineers is a company. (BTW they are very nice and actually tutored at my high school which I thought was very cool)

You have absolutely no clue how DPW is structured do you? This isn't like Chinese companies that are owned by the government. This is an independant company, which is majority owned by the government of the UAE. Their COO is an American. A lot of their executives are American. They have had consultants such as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. And btw, while the government says there is a boycott of Isreal, DPW does indeed trade with Israel (UAE just keeps it mostly quiet)

In case you haven't realized, the UAE wants to run their country like one huge business. The Sheik in charge wants to basically be a CEO.

They aren't interested in wars. They aren't interested in picking sides. As said before, they are the Switzerland of ME politics.

majority ownership by a govt. and independent do NOT go hand in hand. Supporting their quiet embargo of Israeli trade goes against our values here, but those apparently dont matter if you have enough $. All of this is crap, it is a government and this is not an independent business no matter how they have it structured, if 51% is owned by Greece...It is still Grecian, and that doesnt fly with Strategic assets to me and 70% of the US. Let them recognize Israel and then come back and try to sell me that it is congruent with our foreign policy...cuz right now, it dont jive.


we might as well stop...you know my stance and why, there is nothing racist about it...just trying to protect us, which is what the Bush Admin. has been touting up and down for 5 years. Why that is lost on you, I dont know....but regardless....my stance is rational, validated, and in my opinion good for the USA. Take it at that and move on to the next topic, cuz the racism thought, or xenophobic thought doesnt fly and a lot is going to have to happen before Ill agree to outsourcing ANY strategic assets to foreign countries and we SHOULD start taking strategic assets back into our hands from Foreign Countries.

Here comes the irrational stuff again... you show a total lack of understanding of DPW. Emirates Air is also owned by UAE, and flies directly into JFK Airport. Ban then from coming in? After all, we know that airplanes have been used against the US in attacks.

Anyway, since Citgo Oil is ultimately owned by the Venezuelan government, do you not believe they are an independant company? Do you think Hugo sits in on meetings and tell them where to drill?

you prove my point....

Hugo has threatened to stop oil to the US. What would happen if we had to declare war on Iran. Hugo COULD stop Citgo's oil delivery to the US....that is exactly my point. thank you...

Having an airplane flying in is going off the deepend, although possible, Im not as concerned about one airline flying in as an attack as a pre-planned turning of the blind eye to allow "bad" things in to our borders (which is easy to do anyways) when the shit hits the fan.

That is not Irrational at all.

BTW, I dont give a fuck about how DPW has their books drawn up (which they want to keep offshore so that they cant be subpoened) that doesnt mean that they follow those guidelines anyways.....many companies do what they say they dont.

i cant talk about this anymore tonight...

LOL! Yeah, Chavez is going to stop selling oil. You really don't make a difference between rhetoric and economic reality do you? And Hugo would have to stop all oil exports to anywhere, since the oil market is a worldwide one.

Secondly, the guys who will be working for DPW will be the same longshoreman that work the ports loading and unloading today. What, you think they are going to join with the mob to undermine US security?

I think you've read too many Tom Clancy books, I mean the conspiracy theories coming from you are incredibly ludicrous.

And yes, it's incredibly irrational, based simply on guilt by association. If this was a Turkey owned firm, I wonder if anything near this hubbub would rise up? And apparently Germany and Australia don't think DPW is about to 'turn a blind eye' since it runs ports in those countries and has for years.

Now we have them doing things contrary to their corporate guidelines based on... what exactly? The fact that they are brown?

Flasch, seriously - take an economics lesson, then come back to argue this. The "terrorizing our currency" is the kind of crap I expect from a shitty Tom Clancy novel- but I repeat myself.

earlier someone said that this WOULD hurt economically cuz it would effect trade partners with us...now its the opposite, HUGO CANT stop selling oil to us. convenient.

Brown, green, red, white....put that herring to bed will yah? This has nothing to do with racism, with me.


seriously i have to go to bed now

Then please... explain to me why this company would violate its corporate guidlines in such a way? Preferably after you took the tinfoil hat off.

because the corporation is controlled by a government. jeez, isnt this circular?

Yes, its very circular. Why would the government want the corporation to violate its corporate guidlines in such ways (when it has had those guidelines for years)?

I mean you'd think we were talking about Sudan running a company here instead of a US ally that looks to the West, UAE (Hell, its a corporation state).

y'know for me it would be better for you to argue whether or not something is a
"strategic" asset or not. There we could play, but with this it is simple, USA controls Strategic assets in USA...if its not strategic I dont care who runs it as long as they do it well....i guess.

Government type: federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates


Overall governmental authority is invested in the Supreme Council, which consists of the seven sheikhs; a majority of five (including both Abu Dhabi and Dubai) must agree to any action.

USA, as in US government, or US 'companies'? If US companies (in this globalized world there really isn't such a thing), then what if DPW registers its headquarters as being in New York City and reincorporates in New York State? That would make it a US company.

And what exactly is a strategic asset? Are manufacturing plants a 'strategic asset'? Some would argue so, because if we get in a war (where have I heard that postulation before?), these Chinese companies (or other Asian or Latin American countries) can hurt our economy by refusing to sell us certain manufacturing goods, or by closing down manufacturing plants they own in the US (like Japanese companies). How far does it go?

And why is the company that unloads crates in the US more suspicious than those that load those crates in other countries? Do we say that they have to ship using US companies? After all, isn't it worse that China has total control over what it loads in the crates than the fact that a UAE owned company unloads those crates in US ports?

Yep, and they run the country like a corporation, which the Abu Dhabi sheik (who is normally the one in charge of UAE) acting like a CEO, insisting on Western standards of transparency in business dealings. UAE is a very economics based country.

thank god.

They have as much of a chance of stopping the sale of oil to the U.S. as the U.S. does to not buy oil from the middle east. The market just isn't structured that way. It may not be their specific oil that flows into the U.S., but the U.S. will still get its share.

What you described is an empty threat.

The distinction, or lack thereof, between company and country is important to you because it helps you rationalize your position.

thats what I said, that this UAE deal would NOT effect economic ties worldwide.

its important to me becuase it is important to me.

as long as it is not owned by another country's gov't.



that was my point, in saying that this would be a better argument.



It is much harder to control what goes on in another country or on another country's soil than our own. That is proven, just look at how we've controlled things overseas in the past 20 years. All we really have, our last bastion of integrity forever is our borders and what goes in and out of them. Once the borders are beaten then things will be, and have gotten much tougher to control. Makes sense doesnt it?

internal DPW email says that the company actually might NOT sell of their interests in SOME of the ports here eventhough they have stated that they would. Didnt someone ask why they would want to go against corporate stated policy earlier.

Jeez I dont understand, if their so true to the word why would they lie...why would they want to house their documents offshore? I dont get it, jeez...how could I be so wrong? man!!! I hate that. Trust me, Americans dont need to worry about Homeland Security - W so silly, they misled us.

and it looks like DPW is moving forward with the deal as of today wherein they will serve as the management unless Congress steps in.

Cite? EDIT: Never mind, I found it... look at the next post below.

And of course they are going to serve as management until they can get it sold! Duh! What else would you have done? No one work the ports?

I think I found it... and what a tempest in a tea cup!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3720795.html



So basically this officer said we aren't going to immediately sell off the company, so for the time being P&O still half owns you, so continue doing what you do. When we do sell, it'll probably take some time.

I mean obviously the email was not some insidious smoking gun, saying "A HA! We've fooled the evil Americans!", but rather attempted to guarentee that there wasn't going to be any turmoil before it was sold, which may indeed take a while. Basically, go on with business as usual, we'll handle things on the top end.

It is incredible how much you are grasping at straws.

they said they wouldnt sell at a loss, (which I cant blame them since it shouldnt have gotten through so fast to be approved), and because many say they overpaid and now their held over a barrel so they wont be able to get fair market value....so they wont be able to sell under their self imposed guidelines.

They SHOULDNT HAVE gotten to that point to be able to say it'll take awhile to sell....what does that mean 10 years? It is unacceptable and exactly what I stated.....SO of course, since Im right, the house will pass legislation tomorrow to stop this garbage and the Senate will cave under pressure too so that the government can stop this, liek the should have with Siphius(sp?)

So you want them to sell at a loss? I believe they actually said they would sell at fair market value. The problem is that there are NO US companies that do this sort of thing. I don't think Congress would approve them selling to a Chinese or Singaporean country which would be, at least, partially owned by the government.

its a double edged sword...they shouldnt be in this situation at all because they should still be investiaging this under Siphius...so here we are and they MUST sell, but not at fair market value because FMV at this point would be at a loss, possibly a great loss (which I dont blame them for being upset about), so in essence they actually end up getting to control our ports which Im not okay with for one day (i exaggerate therebut you get it)

You're right Flasch.

This plan to have the Arabs take over our ports makes the Halliburton No Bid Contract dealings look like they were business as usual.

Oh nevermind.


I'll stick with ISiddiqui's assesment. Tempest in a tea-pot.

i dont like no bid contracts either, although that vetting shouldnt be simply based on cost....some deeper analysis should be thought about simply than price.

even if it takes YEARS to sell? what is the timeline before you say, wow, Flasch was right? i just would like to know in advance.

It may indeed take years, it's the business world, ffs! And there is no timeline for me to say Flasch was right. You've already gotten it all wrong.

Flasch. This company could merrilly run all of our freaking ports for the next hundred years, and two things would happen. My safety likely wouldn't be compromised one iota, and you wouldn't ever be right, at least not on this issue.

1-4% of the containers are being looked at now, and we want to let some other country do it? We should improve it ourselves....i cant believe that people are for letting another government run our ports. it flabbergasts me, and I hope congress shuts it down...tomorrow. AND the 800 million goes to the Coast Guard.

:banghead: The port company is NOT looking at containers. How many times must this be pointed out? They are loading and unloading containers onto ships. The US authorities are the ones looking at containers!

:dito:

no sir, that is not correct...the coast guard organizers security that the port management executes while the Coast Guard only becomes involved when called upon or on their own volition. I have read other than what you describe.

this must be what youre talking about:


but that only focuses on supposition, assumption, and targeted analysis. The rest IS left to those running the ports. Im not ok with that alone. They are banking so much on manifests, paperwork, trust of other port authorities, etc. Then those that run the ports are the last line of defense...that should be us.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/

Sorry, Flasch, these port terminal companies have nothing to do with checking the cargo. They simply move goods in and out of the port. Like in the Airports, Delta isn't responsible (or allowed) for checking every bag, the TSA is responsible for that.

The Council on Foriegn Relations is a non-partisan site.

i must say im intrigued, however all I can find is partisan hack material. do you have any links that talk about responsibilities that is not affiliated with one side or the other?


eDIT: you read my mind :)

Now, can we terminate the lease at anytime without warning?

Are you two still at it?

(Imran, just let him talk in circles, he'll eventually start arguing with himself. :) )

this line is horse crap considering that I also heard them say that they coud not talk to DHS, or NSA, or the CIA in depth due to confidentiality reasons so the threat assessment can only be incomplete anyways:

Speaking at CFR on January 19, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and CIFUS Chairman Robert Kimmitt said his committee does "good job of assessing the risk" of this sort of foreign investment.

Not unless the contract is for a set period of time and has limits on termination of a lease.

And wasn't the Congressional action basically a landlord getting all pissy over a sublet? But the US doesn't want to run the loading and offloading of ship and would rather leave that to private companies.

Phil Plantier

so I ask again, can we terminate he lease at any time? They port management has NOTHING to do with security or a security plans execution?


If that is true, and the site you cite is truly objective and not slanted, then I change my stance and am ok with foreign investment in the ports BUT I am still not fond of a governments control of that. Im not sure how to reconcile that in this case but I dont think governments should own ports HOWEVER it seems that it is not ownership in this case but a lease thereby if it can be broken without warning at anytime....I feel somewhat better about allowing such a proposition.

I believe I would now vote ok to this, if all of the above i stated was true. Being able to break the lease at a days notice is very important to me.

Imran, see? :)

:laugh:

(that's supposed to be a laughing smily? WTF?)

see what?:samuray-chino:

No, I like the smilies, just not that one.

Freaking time post bug!

I think there's already a "smilies suck" thread.

welp I guess Im back to being against the Dubai ports deal if it matters, considering that it was the Coast Guard is the security anyways, rationale, that the supporters touted:

Coast Guard warns ships of inspections
Spokesman: Units must balance between protection, commerce

From Kathleen Koch
CNN
Saturday, May 20, 2006; Posted: 5:52 p.m. EDT (21:52 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Coast Guard sometimes alerts large commercial ships they will be searched as they approach port so as not to burden shipping companies financially, the Coast Guard acknowledged to CNN on Saturday.

The New York Times first reported the story earlier in the day, saying that commanders of some ports provided up to 24 hours notice to ships to keep commerce moving.

At the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach in California, the Coast Guard gives as much notice as it can, said Lt. Tony Migliorini, a spokesman for the port. "It's kind of a balancing act," he told CNN.

Commanders especially give notice of dockside safety inspections, so that shipping companies don't have their longshoremen on the dock with nothing to do until the inspection is complete, Migliorini said.

Even during boardings at sea, the port typically notifies ship management in advance that the Coast Guard is coming aboard, Migliorini said.

Migliorini said the Coast Guard boards vessels for a variety of security and safety reasons.

Those safety reasons include cross-checking crew and cargo lists with those with the port, as well as allowing dogs to sniff for bombs and to check for radiation, officials told The New York Times. The searches can last between 30 minutes and 12 hours, the paper reported.

Former Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen Flynn, a critic of tipping off ships, told The New York Times it was counterproductive to give notice. "If you say, 'heads up, when you get close to port in two days we're going to board you,' that sort of defeats the purpose of boarding," he told the paper.

The Coast Guard gives little specific information about its homeland security mission, other than that it "is at a heightened state of alert protecting more than 361 ports and 95,000 miles of coastline," according to the Coast Guard Web site.

It states that in addition to protecting against the infiltration of illegal drugs, aliens, firearms and weapons of mass destruction, the Coast Guard also protects "ports, the flow of commerce, and the marine transportation system from terrorism."

There are few details of the Coast Guard's port security mission, other than an explanation that its port security units are "staffed primarily with selected reservists" who "provide waterborne and limited land-based protection for shipping and critical port facilities," according to the Web site.

In a statement released Saturday, Cmdr. Paul Thorne, chief of the Coast Guard's Foreign and Offshore Vessels Division, said that whether the mission is safety, security or just a random check, "this mission objective might be enhanced by the withholding of information from ship management or by the sharing of information with ship management."
Notice varies from port to port

The decision on whether to notify a vessel and under what circumstances is left up to the port captain, and varies from port to port, Thorne said.

A Coast Guard spokesman in New York said all vessels boarded for security reasons there undergo surprise inspections, according to The New York Times.

"If they're from a foreign port and trying to get into the United States, they should know they might get boarded -- without warning," Mike Lutz told the paper.

However, The Times reported that though the port security chief in San Francisco, California, said vessels get notice, Capt. William J. Uberti of the port told the paper that shippers and carriers were "not supposed to have a clue" about random boardings.

There are currently 45 port captains overseeing the nation's 361 ports, Coast Guard spokesman Daniel L. Temper said.

Port security has been a hot topic since the furor arising over a President Bush-backed proposal in February to allow the British company P&O to transfer management operations at six ports to a UAE state-owned company, DP World.

The deal was widely criticized, especially after the Coast Guard warned in a report of "intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger."

DP World eventually relented and said it was transferring the management operations to a U.S. entity.

Boarding and searching ships has always been part of the duties of the Coast Guard, even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Coast Guard officials say that since then, a larger percentage of the boardings are security-related.

The article states that all ships that are boarded for security inspections are "surprise inspections". So from what the article says, it seems the former employee who is hoping for "whistle-blowing" status is talking about advanced notice for safety-inspections? The article is really confusing with all the 'he said, she said' crap. In any event, DP has already diverted all it's terrorists to ports they operate in Australia and Europe and will not be on American soil. So we're safe from the 'brown people' (sic) for now.

Fear the brown people!

Dutch or Duckman, I never once have raised race as an issue. Just wanted to point that out.

So the % of safey inspections that could collaterally find other stuff is no longer a part of the equation. Seems silly for cops to let people know at bars where the DUI stop is on the road up the street so they can go elsewhere. My opinion, not based on coloring of the ship or the people.

EDIT to add: isnt raising race or crying Racism at every turn, or whenever the news might not support your stance a cop out?

no need for this crud

Dude. WAY over the line. you passed it a few miles back.

Hey I call 'em like I see 'em. In my opinion that is exactly what those who opposed that deal were essentially saying. I'm just bringing it to their attention.

Welp, I disagree. My thoughts go much deeper than skin color, Im sorry that you feel that this issue is based on that. I dont view the border battle as a race thing, nor is this.

......however, when the opposition makes a point, your easy out (which Im surprised comes out of you) is racism. That is base and lack of thought, especially when the opposition (in this case - me) is open minded enough to flip flop when the facts bore fruit that I was wrong on the issue.

It certainly wasn't my easy out. I've got a lot of posts in this thread. As for refuting your post about the advanced warnings to ships. It has pretty close to zero to do with the topic at hand. It doesn't matter if an American, English, German, or Dubai company manages the ports, security doesn't change. All this post did is remind me of one of the more embarrasing things this country has done in a while.

the security doesnt change? youre right!! It was worse than I thought to begin with before I read that article. I thought that their checks for "bad" materials were coupled with the possibility that during routine safety checks they would have their eyes open for stuff trying to be snuck through too. IOW, instead of 35 checks/day it was 35 + 22 safety checks....instead were back down to the 35. Makes sense? What trying to stop "bad" materials from getting into the country be it from crossing a border, or coming in a ship, or being shot over in a missle has anything to do with race, I dont know. I just think Americans (of any color or religion) should be responsible for the borders of America. Thats all and I think it does have something to do with this thread.

however, in retrospect I will admit that on the day we all feel good about the Coast Guards' security REGARDING the checking of container ships coming in Ill be more than happy to turn over management of the ports to the Dubai company, like I was convinced of due to this particular thread.