Posted on 02/25/2006 5:15:41 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Isolationism at it's worst. Is the US government ready to buy out and operate 80% of the of the maritime cargo terminals in the USA?
The South Koreans seem, who have a crazy leader in North Korea they share a border with seem to have no trouble with DPWorld.
Dubai Ports World set to manage new Busan post in South Korea
The UAE is 'more focused' on business. I think it's highly remiss to say that they have no ties to terrorism when terrorism is Islamically sponsored for the most part and the UAE is almost entirely muslim.
Let me ask you; suppose all hell broke loose between the muslim world and the rest of the world, a distinct possibility at some point in the future. Which side do you think the UAE would fall to?
As well, on paper you are correct. You have no idea what their involvement with terror is "in the backroom." Your thinking in that way is somewhat naive. For decades we thought and held the view that the Saudis were our allies and basically thought of them what we now think of the UAE at one point. Then we found out how big they are in sponsoring terrorism and how the entire Wahhabist sect of islam essentially operates out of and is funded by the Saudis. So why can't something similar happen again with another "arab," [read muslim] nation??
Our objective is to KILL the JIHADISTS - not all of the Muslim world.
Agree, FULLY! If we went over to the average muslim nation, you could then take me around and point out which muslims on the street were "jihadists" and which were not? Is there a big "J" on their foreheads? Do you think that they're stupid enough to announce their "jihadism" if they're intent on "blowing up one of our buildings" or doing some other horrific act of terrorism?
Or is it possible that they use things exactly like this port deal to take advantage of us? Or are they all honest and forthright? PS, many people in our own government are not honest and forthright, primarily libs.
I hear what you're saying, but the word "naive" comes to mind.
Peter King gets campaign donations from the unions so he will do their bidding.
There are NO American companies doing this aspect of port management.
Foreign companies manage all our ports.
The Chinese now manage the Panama Canal and have hired al qaeda operatives to lay mines every few hundred feet.
They have also placed dirty bombs on every third ship. Just practicing for when Dubai manages NY ports.
Let me ask you; suppose they came into some critical information on the ports and passed it along to some terrorist organization "through the muslim world grapevine."
How would we know?
Again, the word naive comes to mind.
How would we know?
Again, the word naive comes to mind.
And some french company could or would never do that, correct. Hmm, now who is being naive, france who backstabbed us in the WOT, or the UAE that allows our ships to dock and troops station there.
Why is it that anyone not in favor of this has all of a sudden become a lib?
I didn't "choose" as you put it, to be "swayed by AFL-CIO types," but I do see issues with it.
The latter part of your reply seems to ideologically run counter to the first part.
BTW, I'm not against foreign companies running our ports with the limitation on that statement otherwise being that I'm simply not sure exactly what these companies are responsible for doing. I've been digging at this for days here and have yet to have anyone that can lay out exactly what the responsibilities, under such a contract, are. I mean what these people, those hired directly by DPW, do on a daily/weekly/monthly basis that might possibly give cause to raise an eyebrow.
Your logic is far from impeccable. You've now resorted to putting words into my mouth, yet, while simultaneously furthering my argument.
First of all, I didn't see a French company having been rumored to have been in the bidding. Second of all, that's been part of my argument all along. All we've heard is about how our ports are all foreign run already, therefore this whole thing is OK.
Then out of the other side of the mouths saying that, we hear how the ports are the biggest weakness in the WOT. Well, OK, they're the biggest issue in the WOT. Then why are we using the notion that they're foreign run as some sort of "endorsement" for this deal?
That's like saying "this group of investors has bankrupted many a business, that's why we endorse them to run ours." Whatever. But we can't use the notion that the ports are already foreign run as an excuse/defense as long as "the ports" are the biggest weakness and have the biggest gaps in national security in the WOT.
Presumably we can agree on that.
To your point however, other European nations that have not "stabbed us in the back" have "port running companies."
This entire thing appears to be capitalism vs. national security until someone clears up this muddled picture.
Feel free to take a crack at the question that you replied to;
Let me ask you; suppose they came into some critical information on the ports and passed it along to some terrorist organization "through the muslim world grapevine."
How would we know?
As well, I will once again reiterate this, it's interesting how when the argument is being pushed, they're Arabs vice muslims. I think we know the answer to that.
Why do you call them "Arabs"
Because they live on the Arabian Peninsula and are ethnic Arabs. They are Muslim but they are not ethnically Persian as in Iran or Malay as in Malaysia or Indonesia or Negro as in Somalia.
What do they do when they get to work,
I'm not positive of the total corporate structure but think this will be pretty much true. The British company being bought is an old and respected steamship line that runs container liners that is ships on a regular schedule on specific routes over and over and over. They pick up containers in Britian or Antwerp or Rotterdam and bring it to America, New York, Baltimore Norfolk, Charleston , Savannah and many other places. I don't know if they call at alley ports listed but might not call at Savannah if they serve Charleston for instance.
On a day to day basis the workers must schedule the vessels to call based on known sailing times and trip times. They must have efficient terminal operations to load and unload the ships in a most expeditious and least costly manner. They must design equipment and methods to do this work. they must develop and hone confuter's to keep track of all the containers to know where they are all the time and be sure they go where intended.
There are sales people who travel inland to companies hawking their abilities to safely transport and handle the freight without damage. Time is of the essence in a world with just in time manufacturing schedules. Inventory sitting in a container ine the port worthless. It takes lots of good logistic skills and minds to make all this happen while constantly trying to improve to stay ahead of the competition.
There are also check writers and credit managers and maintenance people and salesmen and all the people needed in a business,
Regarding the security. That is in my view a red herring. Of course there is going to be some information that might be useful to enemies. The company in question has employees who can go work whereever they wish. They can float from company to company. They could float into another terminal operation and learn the same info if they work at it.
Terminal security is not about terrorism, although that is a by producr. Terminal security is about property security. The terminal handles the transfer of property and liability from the steamship line to an inland truck line. The transfer of ownership for a shipment commonly occurs when the cargo is loaded aboard ship.
The chain of custody and liability goes from a US business via a trucking bill of lading to a trucker who hauls the container to the port where he drives the sealed container into the port where the seal is examined and if so , the trucker is given a dock receipt which transfers the liability to the terminal. The terminal guards the cargo until loaded on board the ship. At this point, the shipline gives an onboard ocean bill of lading and takes liability. At this point, ownership commonly transfers from the American exporter to the foreign buyer.
The procedure described is for exports and is reversed for imports with the US Customs added between the turnover from the port to the inland trucker.
As a practial matter all this is done by oceanfreight forwarders who are very specialized clerks who shuffle all these papers between the various patties involved in a typical container movement.
Check me if I'm wrong, but isn't that where most if not all major terrorists hale from?
Yes two did come from the UAE. By this logic we must condemn all American blacks because two blacks terrorized Virginia and Maryland with a sniper rifle. But I digress. I don't know the exact figures, but I can safely say that there aren't many real UAE natives and a very, perhaps extreme portion of the UAE population are foreigners imported to do the work. there are some Americans but they are very expensive and Brits are almost as good and a lot cheaper. There are lots of Indians and Philippinos and Packistanians who do the actual work. The Arabs sit at the top and manage. Younger Arabs have been American and British educated and are beginning to take control. Their fathers or uncles hired out everything. The younger Arabs are now able to take control and act because they are educated in the formal business o world trade. The are taking the $$$$ earned selling oil and making prudent investments, diversifying away from oil. Dubai is being turned into one of the world's most important centers of trade and finance. The transformation from seedy desert insignificance to world class everything is actually spectacular.
but given W's track record .....
I think the Mexican border action is yet to be dealt with, not because of neglect but because of political timing. I see no real relation between the problem of Mexican illegal immigration and the flap over ports. I am sure that the reason the pressure on the port deal is evaporating is because Senators and others are being told they are showing their asses and should back off or suffer from being on the wrong side of the issue.
There is a tendency to forget that we went to war with Iraq in 1991 and the state of war is continuous to the present. We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the others on the Arabian Peninsula. Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia from Kuwait and was repulsed immediately. The armored unit that first engaged the Iraqi armor was from the UAE. The Saudi's quickly engaged and repulsed the Iraqis.The governments are extremely grateful. There are Arab people who are not. They are extremely pissed over the change they see. They don't like all the accoutrement's of 2005 living. They long for the pure faith that sprung out of lining in tents in the desert. They are the source of the zealots who blow things up. They are far form the majority. They have no political strength and control nothing. Their goal is to wrest away control from the existing governments and reverting to some great or imagined date in days gone by.
You make a serious mistake by lumping all into the bad guy pile. Since You don't really know hoe to distinguish Arabs from Muslims this is understandable. But it can be remedied by enlightenment.
I have written before and will write again here. The goals of the current disruption of the status quo is a totally new middle east. The strong players will be the GCC states, Israel and the USA/UK coalition. When stable, Iraq will join the GCC, along with Jordan and Lebanon and the area will develop into a great economic power that will threaten Europe. That will happen nothing the next 25 to 50 years. Dubai has been selected as the capital, the economic center of this emerging trade block. We are arm in arm with them and W will never act to block this change.
Forget what was and concentrate on what can be..... that is W's course.
Keep in mind that she raised no objections when her man, Bill Clinton, turned over the operation of the ports at Long Beach to the Chinese.
Do you support everything that has or does come out of the Pentagon?
Furthermore, this is not only an issue that needs to be examined empirically. I'm tremendously concerned about the administration's political capital. Public opinion in this way plays an enormous role there. Franks et al. need to lay out some more specifics on this.
As I've said, this is largely a PR fiasco. What did the administration expect when all of a sudden one morning on the news we hear that a muslim nation is going to run our ports when the ports have been stated to be the biggest single weakness in the WOT and bigger than most of the rest combined?
As well, I won't waver from my position that the Saudis used to also be in a similar position as we now view the UAE and Dubai, and they got full support "from the Pentagon" as well, and look at what has been perpetuated by them in the decades since! Inconsequential? Hardly.
Are the current British owners more security minded than UAE?
Let me turn the question around on you if I may. If you had to lay $1,000 of your hard-earned, presumably, :D, money, on the notion that one of the two firms, British or UAE, had ties to muslim terrorist activities, where would your money go? Why?
Does UAE have loyalty to the throughly discredited concept of Jihad?
Explain that? Who says Jihad is "discredited?" Frankly, it doesn't matter what the civil world thinks. Nazism was discredited too and look at the results of the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Frankly, I see little difference between Nazism and this thing called Islam which has been ridiculously categorized as a "religion." It's much more a socio-political philosophy if you ask me. I can't think of one other religion that states in it's source book that the world is to be conquered and controlled by that religion while subduing or eradicating altogether, any and all other religions.
Honest answer coming. Ready?...I honestly believe they would behave as Switzerland did during WW2...Neutral.
I remember seeing a story on Dubai and UAE many years ago on 60 Minuets (well before I stopped watching them). It was about how wealthy the citizens all were from oil money.
I think money changes everything. If the government of UAE is ideological, I believe they are ideological about money...not about going back to the stone age with jihad on their lips.
It is a daunting task we have ahead of us in this war on the Jihadists...you are quite right about that.
Right on Ratner
Salute you and your service.
.......i'll expect those answers to be relatively long....
Twelve hundred (1,200) words..... how's that.
It's the short version but the best I can do on a Saturday mornin.
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.