What's next? It's COMMON SENSE to keep foreign ships out of US ports???

Can't be far off from being a real post here.


This company is one of the best if not the best in the word at port operations. They will not be the security, the port operation companies do not provide security now, they will not own the ports. Where do these two lies come from and why do people keep saying them?

We are part of the world. Am I missing something, is there a plot at DU to build a wall around the U.S. north, south, east and west?

of Repuke talking points.

nm

If you just look at it anyone can think for themselves.

Are there no American companies willing to do the job?

Why outsource to ANY foreign company?

I don't know the answer. It would be nice if there were North American companies that are competitive.

Why doesn't the Bush admininstration throw it out to a competitive bid?

Could it be.... quid pro quo?

My comment is primary focused on the fact that we are a global market for goods and services. The opposition from both the left and right seems very pointed on isolationism. Just waiting for someone to say we need to bar foreign ships from our ports.

The opposition is about THIS particular company, representing THIS particular government, taking over THIS particular contract for THIS particular area of commerce. If it were an Arab American company, most people would have no problem at all with it.

Turning this into the bogeyman of isolationism is just like playing the xenophobia card. It smacks of neocon bullshit talking points.

with Arab ownership from Qatar, North America or anywhere else. But that is just my opinion.

in the first place, P&O won those bids, from the local port authorities.

Who owned P&O at the time?

Wouldn't a change in ownership void the contract, or at least require a review?

some are 5 years old, some 10. The Baltimore contracts were signed in 2000 and expire in 2007, when they are up for bid again. the Port of New York/New Jersey contract is, I think, 30 years, but then P&O built the terminal with their own money, so longer term deals are standard there.

I keep hearing, from repugs like yourself, what the UAE government employees won't do, but no one can seem to tell me what they WILL do--besides making massive profits. So, I'm asking...

first I am not a repug, and have never even voted for one.

The company manages the port, simple as that. They will do so with American workers under union contracts.

....to a number of secret policies, procedures etc.
.....UAE will do background checks on its hires.
....all it takes is a half-dozen sleepers hired by the UAE outfit.
sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test...

why so quick to call someone you don't even know a repug? this topic is already overcharged. what we can agree on is that this deal isn't er,...ideal. Sorry, but i see lots of people slamming people for being alledged repugs / repukes just for raising a discussion point.

yep, US will own those ports and we will be so safe - no more fear of others and their evil plans.

I guarantee you my entire pay for a year that had bush come out protesting them buying the port, hyping up terrorism and those oh so evil middle eastern folks we would have been on here bashing him and defending the uae deal.

With THAT in mind I think it is intelligent that some folks here are trying to find out the truth independent of what we are told to think from others in government and the media.

And if that is repug to you then label me one as well.

(not privately owned, but nationally owned) that participated in the laundering of 9/11 money, and recognizes the Taliban, is a real problem for me.

Would you also have approved of Mussolini heading up the New York Central?

finally we have something that emotionally resonates with the people who are drawn to the dark side in the name of "security", and you want to belittle the logic of the situation?

politics is not all about logic.

this issue is emotional manna from heaven, do not look a gift horse in the mouth (to mix metaphors just a bit).

"In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.

DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." -snip-

note: if you don't care to read the entire article the above paragraph is actually the last one in the story. Peace. :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185401,00.html

through all the doublespeak it seems that yes they do have responsibility of some key security issues is how I read this ...... how about you? Yea this article comes from FAUX news .... whata ya know. :crazy:

note: DP World = Port Operator ..... now re-read the above paragraphs again and again and again. Peace.

They're the best at port operations?

Never hearing of bad shipments being found at their ports doesn't mean they're good, it means they're not
looking and don't care.

"They're the best at port operations" or something-rather .... and didn't include any link to their reference for this. I'd like to know where this come from also? Where does this lie come from? And who keeps saying it? :shrug:

I refuted the original posters statement that DP World has nothing to do with port security in post #9 with a link to Chertoffs own words that the PORT OPERATOR INDEED HAS SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY'S.

"Never hearing of bad shipments being found at their ports doesn't mean they're good, it means they're not
looking and don't care.' ..... I agree with your line of thinking 100%. Peace.

They couldn't even see a hurricane coming from 1000 miles away. And what happens if the UAE government declares one of those weekly radical Islamic jihads against the West? You think they'll politely pull out without shipping a few little nukies in a box to the DHS security forces . . .who will likely figure it is a homebaked cake from Dubai?

very slowly this time ....... and I agree with you too about our DHS's incompetence to handle any and I mean ANY of their responsibility's in this .... Peace. :)

about invading Iraq because it was totalitarian and terra-supporting, then selling our port operations to a country that is totalitarian and terra-supporting!

Yep. GOP talking points down pat.

Buh bye.

you must be looking for commonsense.org. :hi:

Just sayin'.

will eventually happen. Search around this government run company managing ports is not unique. We should press hard for opening the records of the review. Press for strengthening security.

But this particular deal is not going to carry the Dems to the promised land. We should not be using it just for attacking Bush regardless of the truth to our attack, that will backfire.

This is a topic that resonates with all walks of American life. We'd be fools not to run with it.

And if the Repubs let it pass, they'll kiss '06 goodbye.

Of course, most ships are flagged for convenience or financial purpose, and that doesn't tell you a thing about ownership. On the water, most cargo ships and tankers seem to be flagged in Panama or Liberia, and most crews seem to be Indian or Asian. They all speak a bit of English. But who knows how they're owned? Could be a British shipping company that is a majority subsidiary of a Hong Kong holding firm that is largely owned by a publicly held US company whose stock sits in millions of 401Ks.

It's unclear why it had to be debunked in the first place, because the very idea is ludicrous.

Having the UAE run our ports is like having the intelligence agency of a foreign government run our ports. Well, actually, that's exactly what it is. The dictators who "own" the "company" ARE the intelligence agency of a foreign government. It's not an acceptable arrangement.

Get the facts in a real investigation and stop relying on internet blogs for your facts.

What's the possible upside here?

What are your qualifications for making black and white statements about port security?

for claiming that the Dubai takeover is a done deal.

You still haven't told me what you think the upside is here.

thats assessing our power in congress. hmmm... we lose.

So on to the second part, the upside is letting the right tear itself apart without making unsupported claims ourselves.

who spoke out against this. That'd be horrible.

Hillary and Mendez? from what I understand proposed legislation that is laughable in that there already are foreign governments that are involved in our largest ports. This is what I am talking about. Jumping off half cocked instead of getting it right. Give the RW more talking points, go for it.

So there's no stopping it?! May as well roll over and accept this?! That sure sounds like a RW talking point to me, sport.

We're talking about THIS company, representing THIS government, taking over THIS contract for THIS area of commerce.

security that could be affected. It is quite possible that security is enhanced by working with this company/government, but don't let that stop you.

Just pointing out that Hillary's bill is DOA.

"It is quite possible that security is enhanced by working with this company/government..."

TELL US HOW!!!!!

Co-operation based on mutual interests?

Yer throwin' 'round some mighty purty platitudes there, chief.

Money for Security/Intelligence.

Do you mean: taking their money, and using it to enhance our nation's security and intelligence? As if that's really what'll happen with that money?

Is that the exchange you see happening here?

Because if we go with this deal, I can guarantee we'll need enhanced security and intelligence.

Unfortunately, we'll already have put the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

but you seem to have a misunderstanding of the deal. Dubai Ports World has committed to keeping US managers running the show. The "money" is represented by the profits they hope to make in the future by not allowing a terrorist to usurp security. We have committments by them to provide intelligence, take certain safeguards etc. Safeguards that other companies may not even be willing to take without being forced. Look, I want to get an upside out of this. Shooting it down is not necessarily the way to go. The Dems should be out front demanding more security but using their brains, not fear tactics.

I understand that. There just isn't one in this deal.

Do you really believe they'll keep US managers, establish safeguards, etc? There's considerable reason to doubt this.

And if they can, why can't a US company do it just as well? Does the quid pro quo aspect of this bother you even a little?

And yes, I know foreign companies run lots of other US ports. The sad truth is that up till now, hardly any civilian knew this. We need to stop this deal, then review all existing deals on a case by case basis. Just because we've made mistakes in the past doesn't mean we're obligated to continue them.

can only be addressed by a transparent investigation process. Get the facts then torpedo them. I saw a letter by Conyers? or some other Dem that asked some good questions on how th edeal was approved. I can't wait for the answers. But business is business in the end. If the law was followed and it can be shown that security is not threatened, our party should be seen as pushing for real security enhancement not just taking a contrary/partisan stance.

To say they're not involved with security is nonsense. They hire the rent-a-cops and often prepare the manifests.. (which could determine WHAT gets inspected and what doesn't)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=481615&mesg_id=481615

run U.S. ports do not provide security for said ports? Where did you get that idea? Answer: It's a Bush talking point. And not even a good one.

As far as a foreign intelligence agency running our ports, are you under the impression that the UAE is a company, or do you understand that it's a country? Do you understand that it's a country which is run by a handful of evil men? Do you understand that this same handful of evil men which runs EVERYTHING, including the UAE intelligence apparatus?

This is really simple stuff. Really it is.

Maybe our ports are too important to trust them to any corporations? After all, didn't 9/11 change everything, or is this simply more of the same? Not easy to figure out who your real enemies are these days.

this administration has spent the majority of its term telling us Arabs are out to get us. The 9/11 commission said terrorists not only came from Saudi Arabia but got their money from there as well. Our soldiers have died, civil liberties violated, country divided in the name of fighting 'terra' (in reality a regional war THEY started). So now that they want to do a trade deal we're all supposed to just go along with it? Methinks not.

And, that doesn't even address the conflicts of interest that inhibits any substantive review of the sale OR that the UAE doesn't recognize Israel. Why is Hamas being threatened with financial sanctions for not doing so while the UAE is being rewarded for it?

It's about the pursuit of MONEY and the enrichment of the elite being more important than the citizenry, that's what it's about, imo.

"We are part of the world."

Uh, duh.

"Am I missing something?"

Yes, you are.

"is there a plot at DU to build a wall around the U.S. north, south, east, and west?"

What did you say you had been smoking?

and then consider who attacked us on 9/11.

The hypocricy here is stunning.

And, why exactly is he having to sell out our resources anyway and outsource this if our economy is going so well, anyway?


Also, I seem to remember the consequences of a certain former Presdient authorizing the sale of technology to launch satellites to the Chinese. Wasn't he called a traitor and a sellout?

How is Bush protecting us when he turns and sells our ports to an area of the world that is gouging the hell out of us with oil, and is the homeland of the terrorists who attacked us?

Where does this fit in to his "with us or against us" worldview?

Or, when Bush says "us", what does he mean? Him and his backers? Cause he sure as hell doesn't mean the United States.

The issue is security of our ports. This deal hopefully will get Americans to finally wake up and realize that this administration has done NOTHING to improve port security. Four plus years after 9/11, only 5% of containers are actually inspected. We are indeed part of the world, but it does not follow that we should turn a blind eye to potential security risks.

Any fool can see that!

period

end of story

no more RW talking points please

:popcorn:

I'm getting very tired of these shills coming in here and talking "anti-common-sense", as if we cannot see what is in front of our face.

AS IF... port operations have "nothing to do with security".

That idea, my friends, is royal gasbag crazy-talk.

military weapons... CMon lets see this for what it is...

Unfortunately the Arab Emirates Ports is owned by their Government and Ports are the entries to America... Its strategically and militarily important... To be in charge of not one but 6 they could very esily destroy our ports not allowing goods being shipped in...

Globilization is one thing but having them own military strategic points is not even contemplated ...

So spin all you want Logic is at the heart of this one!!!

the UAE gets 80% of it's revenue from trade, only 20% from oil, The minute they do something like that, they become, well, North Korea without the Nukes. They are finished as anything remotely resembling an entity. I would be more concerned by a company that wasn't owned by, and answerable to, a tiny coutry. They have every incentive in the world to run the ports as well as possible, they cannot stand up to the US, in the end of things, we have more military personel in Dubai than the UAE does.

very sophisticated fighter jets these days. This I heard from an aquaintence. F-18 or F-16 about two dozen of them. Yes we seem very friendly with them. But we were friendly with Sadaam too once. I worry about this port sale to them regardless. The plane deal has nothing to do with the port deal as far as I know, but then again, what do we really know. I just thought I'd throw that out there cuz I thought it was interesting that they are buying our most sophisticated fighter jets.

we no longer build them for our own air force. we sell the F-16 to a lot of people, the Kuwaitis have them, the Saudis have them, Turkey has them, Israel has them...Hell, Venezuela has some.

but the way I heard the story was that the UAE buyer wanted them on the spot and was told they had to be built first. If they are last generation jets no longer being built, why are we building them for the UAE. I'm just curious northzax, not trying to pick a fight. Peace.

the US is moving forward, theoretically, to the F-22. Here is a nice history of the export of this particular aircraft (we sold 80 to the UAE in 2000)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-fms.htm

and a list of all the countries that operate them: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users.html

That doen't make much sense either.

Were they big trading partners with the Taliban?

Nope. Just extremely friendly with an Islamic terrorist organization.

Why doesn't the US recognize Taiwan, Cuba, or North Korea? political games. Why did the UAE reject the Taliban on September 22, 2001, saying that unless the Taliban turned over bin Laden they would not do business with them any more, weeks before the Saudis or the Pakistanis did?

haven't you ever had an acquaintance who was kind of a sketchy guy, but you tolerated him trying to get him to behave, and then he did something really bad, that you weren't expecting, and you cut him off?

And al=qaeda is a roving band of diplomats.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

used Pakistan and UAE's links to the Taliban for backdoor negotiations, right? I confess to being an integrationalist, when someone is the de facto government of a country, it is usually a good idea to work with them, the more isolated a state, the more it has nothing to lose. Read: North Korea.

Like it or not, but for half a decade, the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, they were the rulers of a sovereign state, and look what isolating them got us. Great plan, huh?

by harboring terrorist groups that attacked the US and US citizens.

That is when the warm and fuzzy approach must end.

UAE has too many connections to these assholes to even consider letting them run our ports.

And how did I know you would inevitably bring up Clinton's name in all this? Amazing.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9907/06/us.bin.laden/

Your attempts to obfuscate and change the subject are really not that amusing anymore.

one big happy family!!!

never had any contact with the Taliban? no negotiations? How much are you willing to bet on that? Seriously, I'll put up a thousand dollars. Wanna bet? seriously, we can trade Pay Pal accounts, I'll prove my case, and you can pay my rent next month. Or I'll pay yours, if you are so confident, or that naive.

And how can we post sanctions on a government that does not exist? If we don't recognize it, we are saying that it is illegitimate and not the government of that State, how can we impose sanctions on something that we claim doesn't exist?

There is no doubt that the world is well rid of the Taliban, and, following their refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden, I supported US military action against them. But there are dozens of reprehensible regimes on the planet, is anyone in contact with any of them unworthy of association? If, say, Russia recognizes the current government in Iraq, does that mean they support them, that Russia supports the US occupation?

And, by the way, the Taliban came to power in 1996, what took Clinton so long (three years) to enforce sanctions? Were the Taliban somehow better between 1996 and 1999 than afterwards? Were they not harboring terrorist groups that attacked the US and US citizens before then? Although I don't need to prove any bona fides to you, but I did actually work on the 96 Clinton/Gore campaign, and the 2000 Gore campaign. But that hardly means I can't find fault with Clinton's actions in many cases, he was hardly perfect.

And I do apologize if the stating of facts, and the correction of unfactual insinuations is not amusing to you. If you don't want your little comfortable world of hate disturbed, then stop reading.

back in the 1980's. Can you really trust the United States to provide sound port security?

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300089023/sr=8-1/qid=1141016691/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9877651-5019916?%5Fencoding=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E37AAG/sr=8-2/qid=1141016691/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-9877651-5019916?%5Fencoding=UTF8

but you knew all that already, right? yes, it's distasteful to imagine, but even the saintly US got its hands dirty in the Hindu Kush, before wakening to the danger too late.

and missiles and remember now the Pentagon can't even keep straight any accounts of money or equipment or manpower... Pentagon sends the weapons but whose there to count them in Baghdad hell American taxpayers dollars may help pay for Dubai's defense... its the perfect screw you infidels plan!!!

we subsidize their purchase of F-16s and train their pilots. Hell, they were the fisrt Gulf State to get AMRAAMS. We have anti-missile systems in Dubai to protect US assets in the ports, I'm sure. We already sell them our best export stuff, why would they risk that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

<snip>

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd", traceable back to the Greek ?? ??? ?????? ??????? (hi eis átopon apagogi), "reduction to the impossible", often used by Aristotle), also known as an apagogical argument or reductio ad impossibile, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result. This is also known as proof by contradiction. It makes use of the law of non-contradiction—a statement cannot be both true and false. In some cases it may also make use of the law of excluded middle—a statement which cannot be false, must then be true.

<snip>

Lots more at link

:think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think:

Pretend you're a gun owner. Would you place your gun in the hand of a person who's most likely to aim it at your head and pull the trigger? Of course not.

you, of course, have a safe, right? did you build that yourself, or hire someone else to build it?

I don't think so but I could be incorrect.

you're talking about dozens of them (in Balitmore alone, we're talking seven different contracts) I don't know the bidding history of each of them. And no, no US company was interested in purchasing P&O ports, basically what happened is that the UK company put itself up for sale, and two companies got into a bidding war, one from Dubai, one from Singapore.

Strange that no American Corp. made a bid on any of these.

who knows? ask the port authorities in question.

Gotta keep them durn furriners out.

educated opposition to this deal.

you are a Bush shill.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine Revolutionary Americans saying that it's OK for the Brits to manage the ports. OK, the Brits recently have...but....

and federalised them? and banned corporations from working in ports? strange, cause I forgot that part of the constitution, refresh my memory?

I guarantee you that there were US companies fully owned by Brits, operating in US ports in the late 1700s, after the revolution.

I mean- I'm sure that they're the 'best in the world' at running OUR shit.