The UAE port issue is completely erroneous

Okay I will go ahead and say it.

I know this is all good for our side (W looks bad-may have to change the decision) but I find the whole thing to be typical news dirt kicking and then reporting on their courageous clean up efforts.



First off ( * see below) all that happened is that the FOREIGN company that already ran the port operations agreed to be aquired by another FOREIGN company from another FOREIGN country. The new FOREIGN country just happens to be Arabian. BOO!!!

Second they run the operations. They aren't going to be okaying or not okaying specific boxes to get through. Hell from all the reports I have read it would be pretty easy to get anything you want into this country as it is. Maybe more attention and energy should be paid to THAT and not BS political grandstanding about something that those now donning the capes don't seem to care too much about otherwise.

Third, so if Company A is AMERICAN it is okay for them to run the operations of these ports. Well that flies right into the face of the market economy ideals that we have been sold over the last 30 years (Lewis Powell is spinning in his grave)-this UAE company that just bought the Brit firm that was already doing this seems to know what they are doing and are more than quailified. What's to stop this Company A from simply sub-contracting the work out to the UAE company anyway? Are we simply demanding a middle man for purely nationalistic reasons?

Net does any of this make any difference to the day to day operations at these ports?

*http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html

Earlier this month, shareholders of the UK-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.

P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by DPW means that the Dubai company will be in charge of those operations

Much like there are no US shipping fleets.

very interesting.

So if the Hillary legislation goes through someone will get to start a company...and probably end up outsourcing the work anyway.

corps ..they just don't register the ships american..so they do not have to pay taxes!

just because one part of the equation stinks to high heaven..why must we allow another stink to occur??

the shipping/tax evasion should have been stopped long ago...if we tax payers are paying for the docking facilities...the shipping companies should have to pay taxes just like all other tax payers...this has been hidden out of sight of average Americans..but the American shipping companies hide under foreign flags...

this must all be stopped..it is total bullshit..and the selling of America...

* was just ready to allow the selling of US air carriers...to foreign countries..when do we as a people stand up and be counted..

if your town has a town hall meeting with your reps..go..be there and light a fire under their asses!!

how would any of you feel to have lost a loved one in the wtc ...and now * has sold the ports in your back yard to the murderers???????

My hometown lost the most people on 9/11 and this is in our backyard...and its criminal!

fly

there are no large US port management companies anymore

The first company was a private British Company. It sold out to a company wholly owned by the government of the UAE.

That's the difference, and that's the argument that has been made against this atrocious breach of national security.

I don't care who the country is, you do not outsource domestic security to a foreign GOVERNMENT.

in a way but aren't most UAE businesses basically government run meaning they serve to enrich the ruling family...the king and what have you?

I am just asking.

In any case I don't see how their being foreign makes much of a difference. Business is as business does and global is as global does.

See post above also-I don't think there are any US companies that do this. Should we still require it just to make ourselves feel better? They are waiting here in Allentown to find out.

We have been told that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and that terrorist $$ were laundered through UAE banks. Ever since 9/11, our government has played the terror card to the hilt and tried to scare the crap out of every one of us; the underlying message is that all muslims, all middle easterners, are potential terrorists.

So now, our ports may be controlled by Dubai Ports World, not a private company, but part of the UAE government, the same government that had ties to the 9/11 hijackers.

How can our government expect Americans to not be upset about it after messing with our heads? Maybe we shouldn't be, maybe it isn't a big deal, but I'd say the government has set themselves up for the backlash and deserve what they get. We can't trust anything they do and once again, the deal was not disclosed from the beginning. In fact last night, Dana Bash reported Bush didn't even know it was going down (suuure).

Unrelated question - will this takeover have any effect on unions? I wondered that last night, but don't know the answer.

and regarding the unions - I have also been thinking about that.

I do not know the answer. I have checked their websites for press releases, but there were none on their position.

and I understand that it is good for us but I really don't understand what difference any of this will actually make.

I guess that is what I am getting at.

Does this affect security (such as it is) in any material way? Won't Homeland Security (Customs really) trump anything that the operating firm says? I would think that if an order came from on high to NOT LOOK AT BOX X then everyone would want to look at Box X...this of course opens up the drug running tactic of creating a diversion but that is another story for another time.

I really don't know how Company A being from UAE and Company B being from Anytown USA makes any difference. Does it? Is there any reason to suspect that just because all the execs are blonde haired blue eyed apple pie loving former baseball players they would do any better of a job? Are they impervious to infiltration (if that is really a concern)?

If company B is actually a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT - I have a problem with it.

More than WMDs get smuggled into this country on containers. Just because the government and Company A did a crappy job policing our ports - it isn't okay for Government/Company B to do that same thing - especially if they have sponsored terrorism in the past.

_I am not trying to take credit here-you brought something back up that I had touched on and feel it should be mentioned again_

The focus SHOULD be on operations security and those concerns. This is what I mean, is the operator really going to make that much of a difference? They are in it to make money so the theory goes they are not going to let anything get in the way of that. Now I would assume that security people have the idea of a mole operation in mind and that the secret group that made this decision considered that. I have to assume that because we do not know.

I understand the concerns and the links to terrorism but I guess I am putting a lot of faith in the career people (BIG assumption there) who made this decision. If it is W's people then I necessarily would not trust them--> too many people have been burned too many times ASSUMING that at least one time W&Co. will tell the truth.

http://us.ft.com/ftsuperpage/superpage.php?news%20id=fto013020060018455260&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=NewsKW
<snip>
"At this crossroads of investment policy and national security stands the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency group comprising the departments of the treasury (which serves as the chair), state, defence, justice, commerce and homeland security, and six White House offices."

Do I really need to name them for you?!

Not exactly a group of non-interested professionals.

crap

Yeah (scratches head) yeah that makes it kinda different (looks at shoes and mutters) in a whole other way.

:scared:

:hug:

so national security is an issue.
There was a few threads here yesterday with the article detailing this information.

On edit, here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=476901

in this deal does it stipulate who workers will be...so what if they import workers ..and the workers are infiltrated with al queada?? who will the gatekeeper be?????????

please this is asinine even discussing...

no <foreign nation> should be allowed to provide security for our USA ports...end of story!

Business as usual for the Bushies.

No time to research this.

Anyone know of the history behind this situation?

It would help my understanding of the whole thing.

For instance, the Port Newark Container Terminal was bought from Maersk, Inc. and Universal Maritime Service Corp., Danish and American respectively. Maersk appear to have developed their facility there from scratch, starting in 1975.

I think you'd need to do a lot of research to find out the complete history of all the ports - there'll have been a lot of consolidation of piers, redevelopment and so on over the years.

The UAE has more ties to 9/11 than Iraq does.

Now that this is being pointed out, * apologists are crying "islamophobia", and saying just because a country is Muslim, doesn't mean they are on the side of the terrorists.

I want to know where these people were when *'s cozy relationship with the Saudi's has been outlined again and again.

I guess the "you're either with us or against us" was referring to $$$

Since 9/11 and especially during the 2004 election, the right has shoved "fear all Muslims" down our throats. How did they think people would react?

which is getting worse. Taxpayers have been sold the notion that 'private business' can do it better and it will mean lower taxes...

Well, America, SOME THINGS should be done communally, for the good and safety of the nation. This is a great example of how letting business take care of some things can result in America being at the mercy of large corporations for essential services.

This is a great way to illustrate the point that we need to stop and think about what should be under government/public supervision for the good of all. Wakes more folks up to the fact that corporate giants are the rulers, not elected officials and certainly not any real representatives of the people.

Might usher in the return of a form of tea party.

And longshoremen? Sorry, but they are just about obsolete. Havocdad was watching a show about the new automated methods for giant cargo ships to be unloaded on Modern Marvels just the other day. The corporations have got some big ass, computer programed cranes that take very few actual humans to operate. More decent paying jobs going bye-bye.

Think it's time to dust off the I, Robot DVD and take another look there too.

I would suggest that they begin training their members to operate the systems of the future if they haven't already done so. It would mean less number of worker (the aim of technology) but a larger salary base for the workers and the union.

I should have mentioned the question I had about whether this would be used to undermine the unions that operate there. I would suspect that payroll being union or not is not a big deal to a corporation such as this in this situation. Payroll is always a factor and to be monitored but I would suspect that captial expenses and repairs greatly outweigh the salaries-merely a guess.

many years back, Cruise ships began flagging other countries to avoid having to employ Union workers.

I did a quick Google to see if I am way off base here and came up with some interesting stuff:

http://unionplus.org/norwegian-cruise-lines.cfm
<snip>
Why choose Norwegian Cruise Line and NCL America?
It's union-backed. NCL America operates the only deep sea, US-flagged cruise ships, Pride of America and Pride of Aloha, employing unionized workers. Shipboard personnel are represented by Seafarers International Union (SIU), Marine Engineers (MEBA) and Seafarers Entertainment (SEATU) unions

http://www.labournet.net/docks2/9912/cruise1.htm
"Even though 90 percent of the nearly six million passengers sailing out of United States ports in 1999 were American, and most lines have their headquarters in the United States, the companies escape American minimum wage requirements and other labor laws the same way they avoid corporate income tax and many criminal and environmental laws: they register their corporations and ships in countries like Liberia and Panama, where laws are lax and enforcement is weak. "

So - would that mean that they would be able to do the same thing at the ports? And if so, it wouldn't appear that the British company did that. Right??

Searching on this is very difficult. I don't seem to know the terms that are needed to search effectively.

I don't see anything that mentions that unions are being frozen out on the ports any more than they are elsewhere.

:shrug:

and employing Union workers. I hope that is the beginning of a trend.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1161466,00.html
<snip>
U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.

Two cranes on tracks, one passing under the other, to unload a huge cargo container ship and put the containers on automated tracks and off to their destinations via rail or truck. Each crane has one operator sitting way the hell up and one guy on the deck to spot and signal when each container is grabbed and ready to move.

The whole ship is loaded via a computer program and unloaded in order that each container gets sent where it needs to go.

So, to unload an entire mega cargo ship full of containers, 4 guys at the site. FOUR.

Doesn't bode well for the workers, the tax coffers, the folks who used to sell goods to the workers... the whole thing boils down to less costs for personnel and more black ink for corporations.

Just who they think will buy stuff soon is beyond me.

There is much more than 'meets the eye" and if we are to be taken seriously, let's know what we object to and why lest we be taken for fools.

More on Dubai

A member of my family was heavily involved with international shipping for years and many of his 'headaches' originated with dealing with the Mafia, which controlled much of what went on on our docks.

Have a good day.

You're Welcome

I printed that out for a later read.

have been corrected and high priority after 911...its just not acceptable to say well this was run by a foreign co before so it should continue..because that foreign co has been sold to another...lack of foresight...thats what this administration is guilty of...among other things..

contract for security, it is the operation of the ports. So, is it possible to operate the ports without being involved in security? - having knowledge about how the security works? - working with Security?

By the way - who handles the Security? - Homeland Security? - is that contracted? who has the contract?

When you follow the money...it ends up down in Houston and Crawford and Dallas and in the pockets of the stockholders and principals of the Carlisle group and others who are set to swoop in on what appears to be another Rovian shell game.

One site pointed it out this morning...this could be yet another ruse to set up a major swindle and make people in this country not only look the other way to this fleecing of billions in port tolls and other revenes, but to make the wingnuts jump up and down in favor of it. Call it the "Harriet Meiers end around".

I sense a lot of this "outrage" from the right is genuine, but, just like in the Meiers case, it's a madness with a method. In the next couple days watch as some company such as Haliburton or another boooosh benefactor comes along and "saves the day". The endgame is this regime will turn this into a PR ploy that makes them appear to be "winners" in the end (although this was a manufactured "crisis" from the outset) and allows for the take over of these industries and all the reveneus (including 40% of all military goods shipped abroad) that pass through those ports.

The real losers are the cities and the unions...they'll be skunked out and this regime will laugh their asses off...sending out their minions and sockpuppets to trumpet this as such a great situation...as "it's an American company running things".

Stay tuned...

I heard someone on CNN saying "Well who do you want, HAlliburton to operate the ports?"
It might have been Rep.Peter King (R-NY) I didn't see who said it.

In that case (our points come together here) is there any reason to think that Halliburton would actually run the ports or would they just sub-contract it right back out to the UAE firm or even the Brit firm and keep the UAE out of the papers?

Speak for yourself.

I don't buy the meme that we HAVE TO go global and we HAVE TO join all these trade deals that equal we send them our jobs and they send us the plastic crap we used to make. I think it is exactly what is destroying the American Way of Life, which is not driving gas guzzlers and buying the biggest McMansion you can finance, contrary to how many sheeplike Americans think.

I meant that line to point out how the Republicans will drop their supposed ideals like a hot rock if it is politically expedient to them.

:hi:

It has nothing to do with "national-security". It has to do with corporations fighting amongst themselves to see whose going to cash in.