Dubai company describes plans to sell U.S. port operations

San Diego Union (AP) ^ | 3-15-06 | Ted Bridis

[MCCRon58]

Do they run operations at the entire port, or just certain areas of loading and offloading?

Just the off loading of containers, and returning those containers once empty ()or loaded -w- outbound US freight) The ONLY interface they have with any "port security" whatsoever is to find and segregate and container deemed questionable by the Coast Guard, or US Customs. All containers in their possession are sealed @ point of loading, and must remain so until arrival at the final end user. If not, the reason for the container being disturbed must be documented and explained, and the container becomes a questionable cargo, subject to extra security procedures.

No, the ones rooting against the USA are the ones saying it would "serve us right" to get some blowback for this. Don't try and hide from your own words by strawmanning you opponents' position.

Well, seeing as how I believe you must be willing to accept the consequences for your actions, I do believe it WOULD serve us right if DPW would treat us as we seem so willing to treat them.Not saying I hope it will happen, but I figure that you get what you sow. To not expect blow-back from this is to believe, as children do, that some high, important, parental figure will be able to protect them from the consequences of their own stupid decisions.

And that ain't how it happens in the real world. (case in point, look at how that Idiot Carter screwed up the middle east with his Iran policy of the late 1970's. We are still living with those consequences today.

[TheForceOfOne]

Mideast Investment Up in U.S.

The Link By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Page A01

Excerpt:
Middle Eastern investment in the United States is once again picking up steam, showing big gains since the tense period following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. And while some takeovers are triggering alarm -- most famously, the purchase by a Dubai-owned company of a seaports management firm -- others are evoking warm welcomes.

Spearheading the trend is Dubai's Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktum (popularly known as "Sheik Mo"), ruler of the freewheeling city-state, which is part of the United Arab Emirates. The ports deal is just one of a series of recent purchases by companies he controls.

[clawrence3]

They can certainly "close" the P&O terminals - not any entire port - that would be economic fallout IMO.

[inquest]

Accusing opponents of the deal of playing the race card is accusing them of racism.

[clawrence3]

Let's hope the ports deal was simply an anomaly - if not, the U.S. is headed for another recession (or worse). That's not fear-mongering - that's being able to read pie charts and graphs.

[clawrence3]

Schumer and Durbin DID play the race card - no one has said you did.

[TheForceOfOne]

It was pure political grand standing by Democrats (and fear mongering Conservatives) in the run up to the '06 elections.

[clawrence3]

I can understand the Dems wanting another recession right now, but why the GOP? Are that THAT scared of Bush's approval ratings?

[MCCRon58]

No, that would be what you're doing - accusing your opponents of racism and raising the specter of the whole WOT coming apart because of the failure of this one deal. Not to mention doing your best to make sure that happens with your whole "serves us right" spiel.

You know, in most conflicts, there are always small, linchpin events that have effects all out of proportion to the original perceived actions. As A trucker, I have plenty of time to listen to the pundits on XM, and I couldn't help but to be struck by how many of the arguments about the ports deal were based upon such things as holding UAE to post 911 standards for pre 911 actions, or a basic mistrust of all things Arab. Somehow the UAE actions in relation to Israel trumped our own security concerns.

Heck, if We held to these same standards for our other allies, why do we trust the British. Didn't they burn the White House a few years back? (well quite a few years actually,, but you know those Brits, they Never change their stripes.) Or Perhaps we should have never worked with the French Underground in WWII. (After all, they consorted with -gasp- Nazi's)

If we think we can win the Terrorist war without allies in the Arab and Islamic world, then we would rightly be considered the fools such belief's entail.

And my point is that would you want to help someone who just told you to get your stinking devious American but out of our business dealings, because we know all you Americans are just waiting to blow up our buildings and kill all of us if we don't convert to capitalism?

[clawrence3]

Richard Reid was a BRITISH citizen and that happened AFTER 9/11 - so let's kick out every British-owned company!

/sarc

[TheForceOfOne]

The GOP doesn't believe standing behind the president is a good idea even though he is the reason we control both houses of Congress. The polling data is flawed, we know that, but inside the Washington Beltway it is another world out of touch with the rest of America. Elections are the only true measure of the publics opinion. If we believed every poll created, Conservatives would have stayed home upon hearing the early exit polling data in the last presidential election, thankfully they didn't.

My definition of polls goes like this..

Polling - The art of creating self fulfilling prophecies based on selective data and political bias favorable to the opinion of the pollster and desired use of the poll.

The most egregious fact about the polls is the pollster does not know and does not ask the person polled about their knowledge of the issue. Anyone can pick an answer to a question based on a yes or a no, multiple choice selection, or simply choosing for or against a person due to bias or party affiliation. The only true poll response is a vote by a legal voter on election day, and even then anyone can pull a lever without any knowledge of the candidates or the issues involved.

[inquest]

Do they run operations at the entire port, or just certain areas of loading and offloading?

Just the off loading of containers, and returning those containers once empty ()or loaded -w- outbound US freight) The ONLY interface they have with any "port security" whatsoever is to find and segregate and container deemed questionable by the Coast Guard, or US Customs. All containers in their possession are sealed @ point of loading, and must remain so until arrival at the final end user. If not, the reason for the container being disturbed must be documented and explained, and the container becomes a questionable cargo, subject to extra security procedures.

What I was asking you is if the company decided to close down operations, would it affect the entire port, or just certain wharves and loading docks?

Well, seeing as how I believe you must be willing to accept the consequences for your actions, I do believe it WOULD serve us right if DPW would treat us as we seem so willing to treat them.Not saying I hope it will happen, but I figure that you get what you sow.

You're saying more than just that you expect it to happen. You're saying that we'd deserve it. That's rooting against your country. It doesn't help the situation at all, especially now that this deal is over.

Now there are a number of unanswered questions that the administration has been negligent in clearing the air on. I know that you and others have been saying that there's essentially no security dimension to this while others have held otherwise (an attorney for one company mentioned in the article linked to at #15 said that the port company is the one responsible for laying out the security plan). And Bush himself has done very little to clear it up. All it would take is an unequivocal statement from him in one of his radio addresses, followed up with some kind of explanation for why the deal is subject to review by the country's security organs if security had nothing to do with it.

If he could do all that convincingly, and if his opponents in Congress were unable to respond directly to it, then I would be on the side of the administration. Till then, I'm not going to be swayed in the least by accusations of racism or by fears of undermining the WOT. Right now, I still consider it a matter of domestic security, and that trumps all other considerations.

[clawrence3]

Actually - there was a GREAT poll done during this ports deal fiasco where so many people were against the deal, but then a huge percentage answered that they thought the P&O terminals were being leased currently by U.S. companies! As to the exit polling - my theory is that it actually HELPED Bush get elected by mobilizing the die-hard supporters to overcome the early Kerry lead AND I personally know at least one Kerry voter who said "forget it, I won't vote now if my guy is going to win anyways" . . . I would not put it passed Karl Rove to have manipulated to the exit polling exactly for that effect, since he knew it was going to be a close race.

The self-fulfilling part is so true - I would not want Bush running for re-election, though, with his current approval ratings ; )

[clawrence3]

Just because YOU don't listen to the President's radio address or read the White House fact sheets, don't blame us:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060225.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060225-1.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060221-2.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-10.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-11.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/maritime-security.html

[Cannoneer No. 4]

It hasn't crippled us, yet. Could disrupt the flow of essentials and restrain our capabilities in the future. Is that crippling? Depends. How much of CENTCOM logistics are you up on?

[TheForceOfOne]

A different perspective but factual.


Bush/Cheney '08! Woo Hoo! lol

[clawrence3]

Sorry - that first link was not to the right radio address - the other links lay out the Administration case very clearly. No wonder the MSM failed to carry those points.

[inquest]

Schumer and Durbin DID play the race card

When was this? Google and FR searches using various criteria turn up nothing of the sort.

[clawrence3]

That is very funny - the fuddy-duddy "strict constructionalist" that I am, I must point out that GWB cannot be elected President again (he could be elected "Vice" President though - so maybe just switch that to Cheney/Bush 08?).

[inquest]

Heck, if We held to these same standards for our other allies, why do we trust the British. Didn't they burn the White House a few years back?

Please. Logic like that isn't going to convince anyone, just so you know.

And my point is that would you want to help someone who just told you to get your stinking devious American but out of our business dealings, because we know all you Americans are just waiting to blow up our buildings and kill all of us if we don't convert to capitalism?

Had Americans (or Westerners in general) actually committed attacks like the ones on 9/11 in furtherance of capitalism? Was America used as a base of operations for such attacks. Did we have disturbing ties with radical capitalo-fascist regimes (the equivalent of the Taliban) that were shunned by nearly the entire rest of the world? Again, some perspective does help a little.

But maybe UAE is a good security risk anyway. I'm not denying that out-of-hand. But comparisons like the ones above are definitely not the way to make that case.