|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 7 of 154:
| 
Feb 20 20:43 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I don't think the running of ports should put into private
hands...American or otherwise.
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 154:
|
Feb 20 20:47 UTC 2006 |
re #7 thats an admirable stance, but it costs money to run those ports,
and if you don't want to raise taxes, that money has to come from
somewhere. Contracting out port operations is for some an acceptable
alternative to further government spending.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 9 of 154:
|
Feb 20 21:16 UTC 2006 |
So the government could not manage these ports for cheaper than private
businesses could?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 10 of 154:
|
Feb 20 21:32 UTC 2006 |
re #8: I doubt that the royal family of Dubai wants to manage our ports
as an act of charity; I presume that the company that manages the ports
is a for-profit business with a revenue stream provided by port use fees.
If they can make money at it it's not beyond the realm of the conceivable
that a government-run program could at least break even..
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 154:
|
Feb 20 21:42 UTC 2006 |
Yeah but the royal family of Dubai is incredibly wealthy, so wealthy
that they can and are paying out $6.8 billion just to have the status
of controlling these U.S. ports and buy favor with the Bush
admnistration. Money talks. They might well be willing to lose money
on this deal just to be able to say they run the ports.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 12 of 154:
|
Feb 20 22:35 UTC 2006 |
I think it's unlikely that this is a giveaway from Dubai and as far as
I can tell it isn't doing much, so far, to benefit the Bush administration;
to the contrary it's focussing unwelcome public attention on how cavalierly
they really treat homeland security issues. I'll accept, for the sake of
argument, the premise that the royal family of Dubai might have motivations
other than money in this case. Dismissing them, do you think the British
ownership that currently administers the company is *also* uninterested in
making money?
Why can't you just admit that port revenues pay for all or most of the costs
of administering the ports and come up with some other argument against public
administration of this national security function.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 154:
|
Feb 20 22:49 UTC 2006 |
mcnally you have a point, but we have security issues involving the
arab and muslim countries, we do not have security issues with great
britain. It bears pointing out that Dubai was home to one of the 9/11
hijackers and that the UAE is currently home to many Al Quaeda members
and sympathizers.
How easy would it be for the wrong people, those who don't like the
U.S., to infiltrate the Dubai company that will run these ports? Is it
even worth taking a chance? Why not just have an american company
running the ports, even if they bid less money. Does it ALWAYS have to
be about the money?
|
edina
|
|
response 14 of 154:
|
Feb 20 23:08 UTC 2006 |
Yes.
|
twenex
|
|
response 15 of 154:
|
Feb 21 01:21 UTC 2006 |
<twenex shrugs>
The US has been occupying (legally) foreign military bases and ports for years
in allied countries. I don't see a problem with this. And yes, I know we're
not talking about military ports here. We're not talking about the Saudi
government, either.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 154:
|
Feb 21 03:30 UTC 2006 |
IMPEACH
TRAITORS
They bombed us on 9/11
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OUR GOV'T
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 154:
|
Feb 21 06:33 UTC 2006 |
I haven't seen a thorough treatment of what it means if a Dubai company
manages the port. Who makes what decisions and who employs whom? How do the
financial arrangements work? What in fact will be different about the
management from what it is now? At least let's see what it actually means
before we take stances for or against it.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 18 of 154:
|
Feb 21 09:34 UTC 2006 |
islamic law, like in the UAE should rule at US ports? exterior signs of
christianity (crosses and so) forbidden, no men-women equality, and
other few things.Men required to wear the checkered scarf, women under a
black sheet.
Btw., the mainstream US press didn't publish the Muhammad danish
cartoons.Nice yanks.In the near future no need to hunt for WMD, they'll
be in containers at US ports.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 154:
|
Feb 21 16:25 UTC 2006 |
That's all speculation - what are the facts of the Dubai management of the
ports?
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 154:
|
Feb 21 17:31 UTC 2006 |
re #19
The facts are that DHS has fallen short of securing our ports and now they
want to hand the responsibility right off to the middle east were are biggest
threat emanates.
IMPEACH
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 154:
|
Feb 21 18:12 UTC 2006 |
Those are NOT the facts of the Dubai management of the ports.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 154:
|
Feb 21 18:30 UTC 2006 |
The facts are Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co's selloff by the
Brits to Dubai Ports World (state-owned by Dubai) never made it onto the DHS
radar. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co helps run several US
shipping terminals. It was a buyout for $6.8 billion in cash by the Dubai
Monarchy of our weakest homeland security infrastructure.
You know who analyzed the risks? A committee on foreign investments run by
the Treasurey Department. Not DHS, not Port Authorities, and not any US
intelligence agency. DHS is not able to reconsider the approval without
evident Dubai Ports World gave false information to the foreign investments
committee. (i.e. there is only a 30 day window to withdraw approvals)
Now, why all the armwaving over Dubai?
UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear
components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul
Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to
recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
Is that who we want owning our biggest risks to homeland security?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 154:
|
Feb 21 18:38 UTC 2006 |
These are still not the facts of the management of the port. I'd like to know
what specific management powers they have. We can then judge whether those
powers jeopardize national security or American employment. If absolutely
nothing changes in the management of the ports under DPW from POSN, what are
the problems?
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 154:
|
Feb 21 18:55 UTC 2006 |
re #23
Rane, something as simple as the budget for X-Ray equipment is at stake here.
We don't publish Port Authority security safeguard technology. IN this case,
UAE wouldn't have to dig very deep to circumvent those safeguards.
They might even decide to not even fund them. They might decide to sell
this information to neighboring Arab countries or intelligence. Hell, they
might decide to just let al Jazeera walk through one of our ports with their
cameras and document the whole fucking thing. *slaps forehead*
You don't see the problem with a Middle Eastern monarchy which is
sympathetic to terrorist nation states having control over our ports?!?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:08 UTC 2006 |
All of your "mights" do not address the questions of what are the SPECIFIC
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES of DPW, and how do they differ from those of POSN.
This topic cannot be argued intelligently in the absence of FACTS.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:11 UTC 2006 |
Well boss, I just told you that those safeguards are not PUBLIC.
You're just going to have to think that one through.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:15 UTC 2006 |
Most of them should be public. Only those pertaining to specific security
procedures might have to be secret, but certainly known to DHS. Those are not
what I am concerned about. I want to know about employment and operations.
We have been told that DPW will NOT have any responsibility for security
arrangments. The DHA will............ (ohmigod!).
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 154:
|
Feb 21 19:24 UTC 2006 |
*snort*
You want to know if UAE has stricter employment background checks than a GB
firm?
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 154:
|
Feb 21 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Tod, The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and border protection, adn all their
various instermentalities will remain in place. Teh VACIS machines and the
Radiological detectors will still be in place. The port authority, no matter
who they are, will not be able to change that.
That being said, you will still see the same problem of a rich man calling
the local senator adn saying..."Why are you holding up those trucks?! The
trtansportation must flow!"
Where upon the senator will call the Port Director and the Director will call
the Supervisor, adn the supervisor will call the inspectors together adn
say... "Get those trucks moving! Don't you know there is money involved
here?" then wink at them adn send them about their business to ignore what
he said and do their jobs.
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 154:
|
Feb 21 21:46 UTC 2006 |
Um, okay then, Bruce.
|
eprom
|
|
response 31 of 154:
|
Feb 21 22:30 UTC 2006 |
richard's a xenophobe!
|