Skip to comments.Right-wing hysteria v the Dubai ports deal
Posted on 02/28/2006 1:44:45 AM PST by Brian Allen
I relentlessly criticize the left-wing media for lies, deceptions and omissions (LDOs). I take a back seat to no one smacking the left up side the head. So I wake up this morning with this tragic right-wing propaganda:
Because of the heightened concern over keeping America safe, it's amazing to think the federal government would put management of major U.S. ports in the hands of foreign companies.
Who do you think operates our ports now, you dimwit? And who would turn security of our ports over to a mere owner? Please.
Like the "emotional" "unpatriotic" left, our blindingly patriotic conservatives were first in line to savage our President, Secretaries of State and Treasury as political idiots for "turning our port security over to a terrorist organization" like the UAE (a totalitarian state of Muslims). As most knowledgeable patriots have come to realize, Muslims march to another tune. Theirs is a patient march toward the evangelical conversion of humanity by ANY MEANS to the cult of Islam and their "prophet" Mohammed.
It is easy to see why conservatives are upset. It took 4 entire years for the Republican administration to identify the "terrorist" enemy as Islamofascists preferring to "believe" like our liberal media still does that there is a mass of Muslims who have no interest in turning the world into a Caliphate. Such naive thinking doesn't warrant credibility at any level. Conservatives are well served to keep the pressure on an Administration that stumbles with a Harriet Miers when a Samuel Alito was in the wings.
There are two things wrong with our instant rejection of the UAE takeover of the present British management. First is the belief that intelligent and patriotic ministers of democracy like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, John Snow as well as George W. Bush would turn our very vulnerable target-rich ports over to our enemy. When you think about it, don't you question your knee-jerk rejection of their decision? Is there something you don't understand?
Second is the fact that the shipping business in the world is run by foreigners. Our brain-dead Congress has made so many restrictions on the business; everyone avoids flying the American Flag like the plague. With a "leftist-like" inflexibility is it any wonder that no American company ever bids for the management of the subject ports? And with customers like Wal-Mart cutting your profit margins to survival levels, why even bother.
I have been a subscriber to the Journal of Commerce, the bible of the shipping business for several years. It has informed me that the worldwide shipping business is world unto itself. When John Kerry was pounding on the electorate that he would protect Americans jobs, the JOC featured Kerry's picture on their cover and the accompanying article that blatantly stated that Kerry was "one of us" and to ignore his political pandering because he is in our pocket. Free trade from a "bought and sold man".
Shipping is the grease that makes the world's economic engine purr. Expenditures are measured in trillions not in millions or billions. To be competitive, governments the world over approve any expenditures to facilitate trade. As a result, you can ship products around the world cheaper than loading them on a truck and shipping them to the next town.
The rejection of Dubai Ports as the owner of the previously British management company sends a shot across the bow of Islam. It is too convenient to believe that some subtle management of this issue isn't involved. It is a remarkably convenient response to the militancy of an Islamic population gone berserk over cartoons. Hey fellas, you can't buy America even if you have the cash; because you are MUSLIMS. It is quite a message.
The propaganda, however, is an overblown response. Our ports operate under American laws. Our longshoremen are a patriotic mafia with millions of eyes searching for those who would jeopardize their $120,000-a-year jobs. Port security is overseen by the American Coast Guard and Homeland Security.
Plans, diagrams, electronic surveilance, security protection is available to all. Just visit any port and they will willingly show you how well-protected you are. Believe me there are no secrets. They are ready to blow a dingy out of the water that threatens a tanker. Dubai Ports would be out of that loop. Manipulating debits and credits is a far cry from manning the guns and radar.
Our ports are insulated from a passive management in Dubai. They operate under our laws with our people. What security secrets there are, are well known to world-wide port operators like Dubai already; security is a non-issue. However, conservative hysteria aside, what is the best course of action.
On one hand, if we approved the deal, we have an opportunity to demonstrate inclusion which could be used as a hammer over the Arab street. There is no doubt that such approval would be a priceless bit of Western propaganda. You have to believe W wants that tool.
Yet on the other hand, in the present clime, let's send a shot across Islam's bow. It would be a great counterpoint to the mushiness of our media and to our government's lingering inertia over publicly discussing the reformation of that political cult into a real religion. Let's reject the Dubai takeover.
But conservatives best not jump out the window like their liberal opponents every time we are faced with a thorny issue. They always present opportunities. It is best to weigh the facts carefully and let the cauldron steep for a while. We don't want this conflict to last too long: we have an early tee time. And dont be deceived, the operation of the ports would not change a whit under Dubai Ports, we would merely be sticking them with the bill.
I wonder what got them to change their assessment?
One more thing, I'm having trouble finding this anywhere on the net. Any chance you can provide a link. Thanks!
Dont know but AQ probably shouldnt know either...
Foreign powers bought the Democrats a long time ago. Why don't we care about that?
"The rejection of Dubai Ports as the owner of the previously British management company sends a shot across the bow of Islam."
Oh, gee ... wouldn't want to do that. Islam is such a great and trustworthy friend! /sarcasm
I don't care if we allowed Britain to manage the ports. The UK is our best ally! There is no comparison between the UK and UAE.
Arguing with somebody over the internet is a lot like running in the Special Olympics. You might win but you're still retarded.
Hutchison Port Holdings along with PSA Singapore Terminals, Dubai Ports World and Denmark's APM Terminals handle nearly eight out of every 10 containers destined for the United States. Ever wondered why there are so few American shipping companies operating terminals overseas?
He implies it but doesn't say it, so I will:
1) There are no American companies to take over P&O. All potential bidders are foreign entitities.
2) DP World would not be "taking over ports", they would be taking over certain business operations (lesser or larger) within each individual port, e.g., stevedoring only at the Port Of Portand, Maine.
For all intents and purposes, yes, this is a done deal. Dubai Port World very graciously offered to delay the transfer in order for the idiots in Congress to review the facts and to give more time for the facts to get out to the American people so they would be more comfortable with the transfer.
Dubai Port World made a legal business deal that was approved by the appropriate authorities. There is no reason for them not to take control of the lease whenever they want.
Could the reason the Dems are pushing so hard about port security not have a thing to do with acutual security in the US, but growing the federal government by adding the dock workers to the federal work force? Just as they did for the airport screeners?
You were just shown a link to an article that PROVES the story you linked was WRONG.
But never mind that.
Thank you for sanity in the face of mindless rant and blather.
They've been trying to shove the unions down our throats everywhere else, why not?
Most people don't understand what goes on at ports. Why should they? They never needed to. The supply chain worked for most consumers without any requirement for them to think about how that Made-in-China item they want got from where it was made to the shelf.
Now ports are in the news thanks to a Democrat effort to make people think Democrats care about security and a whole lot of people fell for it.
In the last couple of weeks a small band of Freepers who do know something about ports, or shipping, or Dubai, have attempted to engage and educate the Freepers who fell for it. The results of that can be found at keyword: ports. Lots of negative emotions expressed on those threads. Lots of people didn't think before hitting Post, and now those opinions are archived.
The Freepers who fell for it are feeling defensive now. We should be gentle with them.
If we turn this down, there might be riots.
DHS spokesman stated in OPEN SESSION yesterday, that those concerns no longer exist. The Coast Guard is satisfied, and voted in favor of this deal. Minutes later they went into closed session. Later lieberman and collins (wow, there are two staunch Bush supporters) came out and stated "they still had concerns".
Thanks for your insight. The more information the better in the face of hysteria.
"I wonder what got them to change their assessment?"
Truth and facts.
I'll take Chain of Command for $500, Alex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.