Dubai Ports Deal: A Pitchfork Moment

Human Events ^ | February.24, 2006 | Pat Buchanan

[Reagan Man]

>>>>You need to settle down, China nor the UAE are managing our "port of entry" US Coast Guard does that.

Port Authority is the immediate overseer of all port operations. The Feds setdown the regulations. The DHS supplies security for US ports of entry. The longshoremen handle dock activities. The Coast Guard handles the waterways around US ports of entry. DPWorld 'type companies' are known as managemnt companies and they handle the commercial aspects of port of entry operations. Here are some terms/words from the DPWorld website, which they use in their mission statement to attrach future business deals and prospective clients.

DPWorld: "port terminal operations ", "operations", "operating and managing ports", "integrated port management", "global network of terminal operations", "port operations", "the ports operated by Dubai Ports".

Special treatment = CFIUS rubberstamping sweetheart deals = governemnt approval.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the good conversation/debate/discussion/whatever. It was fun.

[unseen]

I am not an isolationist. So if you don't believe in Free trade your an Isolationist. How about we charge tariffs on our products and cut our taxes like they use to when the country was founded. How about we let Japan, China and the rest of the world pay for our healthcare, and military instead of our children. What if that causes prices to raise and AMerican jobs to stay home and help support our economy. And what if due to the tariffs our workers can compete on an equal footing and our trade balances actually come down. And finally what if we find that countries become more friendly to us to receive special considerations and do not call us the Great Satan,

I think we should trade all we can I think we should project our worldview where we can. We should not go into a defensive mode but we should not sell Grandma's China for $1.50 on Ebay either. They has to be a happy medium somewhere.

[Echo Talon]

DPWorld 'type companies' are known as managemnt companies and they handle the commercial aspects of port of entry operations

And they have to follow all the rule regulations that WE setup and if they mess up they can be shut down.

[Echo Talon]

How about we charge tariffs on our products and cut our taxes like they use to when the country was founded.

How about they put 500% tariffs on your oil?

[nopardons]

"IMPORT" means that one TAKES IN; you should have used the word EXPORT; except that Mexico doesn't, EXPORT drugs, as a nation.

And since you are obviously unaware of the fact, CANADIANS smuggle vast quantities of POT into America.

None of which is what "free traders" mean by FREE TRADE!

You don't really understand free trade, nor why trading ( not giving away/selling SECRETS, as Clinton and his horde did do! ) with China, is actually not really all that bad a thing to do. So, please get beyond kindergarten and read up on this stuff.

[nopardons]

Oh yeah and Smoot-Hawley did wonders for America, too. LOL

[unseen]

They put 500% tariffs on their oil we don't buy it and the economy collapses if our economy collapses their economy collapses. etc. Trade means to trade. You'll talking about a trade war. Like I said the middle road. Is where we should be.

[endthematrix]

Re: Trading with Authoritarian regimes

"not really all that bad "

Does that mean it's not really all that good?

[nopardons]

It means that it is one small way to get the Chinese people to want to NOT be insular and live under that authoritarian regime.

It has worked in other countries.

[nopardons]

Well, not exactly. Most of Middle Eastern oil goes to Japan and Europe.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"Because their sucking at our tit... 100 million, it is a disgrace that we took their money."

What a sickening remark. It makes me ashamed that you are an American.

[unseen]

Mexico imports alot of drugs they then export them to us. And the lack of drug enforcement by Mexico on their side of the border is a defacto case that the nation of Mexico exports the drugs to the US. I understand free trade fine. You must not have been taught how to form an agrument nor how to read and understand a comment. I stated that trade with us should be based on conditions. Let me spell it out to you slowly. FOR Example....If MEXICO continues to allow the border to be crossed by drug traffickers then they should not be entitled to Free trade with us. This gives them an incentive to increase their police force and to patrol their border and to work more closely with the US so that their free trade status can be maintained. that is called using your assets to leverage in your favor a desired event

[unseen]

Smmoot-Hawley raised tariffs to record levels. I said nothing about record tariffs. Smoot-Hawley was bad for America just as the other extreme complete free trade is bad for America in the long run. Why do free traders always use extremes can they not thing in degrees or is everything always black and white to them?

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

"How does giving up our sovereignty constitute long term strategic thinking."

By continuing to spout the lie that this deal is tatamount to giving up our sovereignty you show yourself to be a person unable to look at this issue with intellectual honesty.

"They need us more then we need them. "

Then why in the hell would they BLOW UP OUR PORTS!???

[unseen]

It was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question

[endthematrix]

Trade figures with China are by no means, "small."

As Dr. Phil says, "how's that workin' for ya?" We're seeing fifty odd years of Communist rule.

"It has worked in other countries."

So has orchestrating Coup d'états.

[nopardons]

And as such, was completely baseless and ridiculous.

[nopardons]

I didn't say that the figures were "small"; I said that it was a SMALL part of a plan to change the perception of the Chinese people.

We haven't been trading with China for FIFTY YEARS and China has been under Communist rule for far more than fifty years.

Facts matter, your emotions don't.

[unseen]

Cool book and name by the way.....

I look at this issue from a intellectual point of view and from a political point of view. From the political point of view this is a huge mess. Intellectual the issue has some negative and some positive points. But I feel that the negative far outweight the postive on this issue. And I say sovereignty because the word fits:
Sovereignty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

In constitutional and international law, the concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs (such as courts of law) possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute.