|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 13:17:18
|
I don't see anyone here talking about the Dubai port management deal, so I'll start if anyone's interested. I was reading about it in the news, and heard some commentary, and was persuaded by the argument that there was no reason why the President would know about the deal, that it is not a security risk, and that the only reason people are freaked out about it is because the company is owned by Arabs, and Americans think all Arabs are potential terrorists.
Then I started hearing about all the Democrats who are taking advantage of peoples' ethic and racial prejudices by attacking the Bush administration over it, and that those attacks are effective with the public. This doesn't exactly improve my opinion of the Democratic party. Before I thought of them as disorganized and far too willing to compromise on important issues for the sake of small political gain. Here they're promoting and taking advantage of naive xenophobia.
Perhaps some would say that playing dirty is the only way to win in politics. If that's true, no wonder so many Americans have thrown up their hands and don't even bother keeping up or voting anymore. (Not that I'm defending that either.)
Other thoughts?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 13:35:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't see anyone here talking about the Dubai port management deal, so I'll start if anyone's interested. I was reading about it in the news, and heard some commentary, and was persuaded by the argument that there was no reason why the President would know about the deal, that it is not a security risk, and that the only reason people are freaked out about it is because the company is owned by Arabs, and Americans think all Arabs are potential terrorists.
Then I started hearing about all the Democrats who are taking advantage of peoples' ethic and racial prejudices by attacking the Bush administration over it, and that those attacks are effective with the public. This doesn't exactly improve my opinion of the Democratic party. Before I thought of them as disorganized and far too willing to compromise on important issues for the sake of small political gain. Here they're promoting and taking advantage of naive xenophobia.
Perhaps some would say that playing dirty is the only way to win in politics. If that's true, no wonder so many Americans have thrown up their hands and don't even bother keeping up or voting anymore. (Not that I'm defending that either.)
Other thoughts?
Sure, I'll bite.
Foreign ownership of ports is not an uncommon occurrence. What is uncommon is that the port would be run by a state owned small foreign government who is fickle in their relationship with us.
The other ports that are foreign owned are owned either by free standing companies or by large foreign states which are unlikely to be taken out by coup d'etat by radical extremists. UAE represents an unacceptable risk in this regard. That the vetting process appears to be cooked, is near criminal. DOD was supposed to be a part of the vetting process, but it turns out that they were never invited to the mettings on it. Congress started asking the departments listed on the vetting team if they attended the meeting for the vetting process and so far none of them has said they attended the meetings. This raises obvious questions like "who actually was in on the vetting process" and "who ok'ed this". Questions this administration chose not to answer and instead not only insisted on it's secrecy but threatened a veto of any blocking legislation.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans have been asking valid questions. The Republican pundits have been playing the Arab=terrorist card. Others are pointing out the predominate (70%) "Death to America" stance of the general population of the UAE.
Sorry, I have a severe problem with the administration foisting this deal on us and responding to questions with "trust me" lines. This administration has lost my trust through their actions. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/28/2006 13:37:09 |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 14:28:36 [Permalink]
|
| Follow the money. I doubt the purchasers want to blow up their own assets, but I also believe there've been reports that some in the "pass it quick before anyone catches on" group are due to make their own profits after the deal. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 15:08:04 [Permalink]
|
Val said:
quote:
Foreign ownership of ports is not an uncommon occurrence. What is uncommon is that the port would be run by a state owned small foreign government who is fickle in their relationship with us.
The main issue I have is the company is woned by a foriegn government. It doesn't help that this government recognized the Taliban as legit, let A.Q.Khan smuggle nuclear refinement machinery through their ports, and so on and so on.
I might be ok with it if the company were privately held, even if it was based in UAE. Maybe.
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Follow the money. I doubt the purchasers want to blow up their own assets, but I also believe there've been reports that some in the "pass it quick before anyone catches on" group are due to make their own profits after the deal.
Sure, the UAE doesn't want to blow up our ports, nor do they want to even be connected to terrorism.
But it is a security risk letting an Arabic company owned by an Arabic government manage our ports.
I would be opposed to any government, even our western allies, owning a company that managed our ports.
It is a no-brainer to not allow these things to be outside of our control.
marfknox can make all the claims of racism she likes, but the bottom line is that when you say "terrorist" the first thing that comes to mind these days is Islamic fundamentalist.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 15:58:42 [Permalink]
|
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/28/dpworld-boycotts-israel/
Apparently the UAE company boycotts Israel.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 16:05:00 [Permalink]
|
marfknox wrote: quote:
Then I started hearing about all the Democrats who are taking advantage of peoples' ethic and racial prejudices by attacking the Bush administration over it, and that those attacks are effective with the public.
I haven't heard arguments on the Dubai ports deal from Democrats that were racial or ethnic in nature. Care to give us some?
I think that if we really did have good control over the security of our ports, this ports deal would not be a big issue. But few people, for good reasons, have confidence in our security measures. A small al Qaeda clique of conspirators within the Dubai company could do a lot of potential damage. The vetting on this by the Administration was non-existent. The Bush boys blew it again. When even the President has to admit he knew nothing about a deal giving control of a bunch of US ports to a foreign government, something is seriously wrong.
A charge of racism, from the same Administration which has been pumping up a "Crusade" against Arabs since 9/11, rings very hollow indeed.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/28/2006 16:08:11 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 17:03:45 [Permalink]
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 21:47:27 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the Washington Post Coast Guard story link, Dude.
To me, that wraps things up concerning at least a conclusion that Dubai Ports World was not properly vetted, and it also gives strong hints that he takeover deal was probably pushed through in such a way as to deliberately quash any real investigation. Clearly, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Thomas Gilmour was under constraint not to even mention the critical Coast Guard study, when he briefed the Armed Services Committee. Again, military personnel are being used for political and business purposes by the Administration.
After the Coast Guard report leaked out...quote:
Later, the Coast Guard said in a statement that the excerpts of its preliminary evaluation "when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis" that eventually concluded "that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in ports" in the continental United States.
As is so typical with this Administration, the word, "classified" is used to ward off further inquiries.
I have yet to see one "racist" comment by a single Democratic politician on the ports deal. Yes, the White House is trying to the impression that Democrats are talking that way, but we should all know by now that the Bush White House usually speaks with forked tongue, when it chooses to speak at all. Democrats are sitting pretty on this one. They have no need to use any kind of dirty tricks like racism to make Bush look bad. And a lot of Republicans are piling on with them.
Bush's people have now engineered a deal where DPW has requested the very investigation that bush's people broke the law by not having in the first place. The hope now, apparently, is that things will cool off, the people will forget, rebellious Republicans will be corralled, and the deal will go through. Surely, there is some kind of dirty money in this deal for Bush and Co.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 22:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: quote:
Foreign ownership of ports is not an uncommon occurrence. What is uncommon is that the port would be run by a state owned small foreign government who is fickle in their relationship with us.
The other ports that are foreign owned are owned either by free standing companies or by large foreign states which are unlikely to be taken out by coup d'etat by radical extremists. UAE represents an unacceptable risk in this regard. That the vetting process appears to be cooked, is near criminal. DOD was supposed to be a part of the vetting process, but it turns out that they were never invited to the mettings on it. Congress started asking the departments listed on the vetting team if they attended the meeting for the vetting process and so far none of them has said they attended the meetings. This raises obvious questions like "who actually was in on the vetting process" and "who ok'ed this". Questions this administration chose not to answer and instead not only insisted on it's secrecy but threatened a veto of any blocking legislation.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans have been asking valid questions. The Republican pundits have been playing the Arab=terrorist card. Others are pointing out the predominate (70%) "Death to America" stance of the general population of the UAE.
You put up a pretty persuasive argument, especially in regards to the deal getting pushed through too quickly. The 45 day review seems necessary. But plenty of Dems are supporting legislation that would outright ban the transaction, regardless of the 45 day review's outcome.
The most important question is whether Dubai taking over management is a security risk. I don't see how they are any more of a security risk than the other foreign company. Security is run by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Also, written into the deal with Dubai is a requirement that they must participate in a security program that is specifically for stopping smuggling and detecting illegal shipments of nuclear materials – and this is not a program that all foreign companies are required to participate in. The poor security of the UAE is not relevant since they won't be running the security.
If we're worried about the port security, US officials should beef up the security that it does and will continue to control, not undo a deal with a qualified Arab company, particularly when that company is connected with one of the US's few allies in the Arab world. If the nasty turn that Islamic culture has taken is ever going to shift so that Muslims will be at peace with the rest of the world, there must be change from within Islamic culture.
The USA can encourage positive change by making friends in the Arab world, and the UAE has already met the USA part of the way. The UAE is the only Middle Eastern country that allows US Customs to inspect its containers. The UAE government has also given its support to Bush's War on Terrorism”.
As for the 70%, according to Wikipedia, the majority of the population in Dubai are expatriates, mostly from South and Southeast Asia. Not only that, but such expatriates comprise the majority of employees that run Dubai's commercial establishments.
The motion to block this deal instead of at least letting the company get the 45 day review would do nothing to improve national security, but it could deepen the convictions of Arabs who see America as their enemy. quote:
Sorry, I have a severe problem with the administration foisting this deal on us and responding to questions with "trust me" lines. This administration has lost my trust through their actions.
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/28/2006 23:07:13 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 23:06:24 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: quote:
As is so typical with this Administration, the word, "classified" is used to ward off further inquiries.
Yep, that's a hugely problematic thing with this administration. Although the shooting accident with Cheney showed that sometimes it's not even for some big scary reason. It's like being secretive is both a knee-jerk reaction and something Bush and his cronies deem as their right. The worst thing about a secretive government, of course, is that they might be getting away with something dirty, as you suspect with this deal. But the second worst thing about it, in my opinion, is that it causes imaginations to really run wild. Somehow I doubt the "truth about 9-11" crowd would be so large if this administration was a lot more open and honest.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 23:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Marfknow wrote:quote:
Halfmooner wrote:
quote:I haven't heard arguments on the Dubai ports deal from Democrats that were racial or ethnic in nature. Care to give us some?
The Washington Post reported, "The lawmakers (including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer) said they feared that national security might be compromised by letting a Middle Eastern firm manage key U.S. ports.” Then Schumer turns around and says that their objections have nothing to do with the fact that the UAE is an Arab nation – as if that were believable. I don't so much think that Democratic political leaders have personal ethnic and racial prejudice of as I think they are taking political advantage of Americans' ethic and racial prejudice. (see my response to Dude at the bottom of this post.)[/b]
I still don't see racism there. It seems, in fact, Clinton and Schumer were being careful to avoid it. Their expressed security concerns seem reasonable to me, and to the point.
marfknox opinionated:quote:
Yep, that's a hugely problematic thing with this administration. Although the shooting accident with Cheney showed that sometimes it's not even for some big scary reason. It's like being secretive is both a knee-jerk reaction and something Bush and his cronies deem as their right. The worst thing about a secretive government, of course, is that they might be getting away with something dirty, as you suspect with this deal. But the second worst thing about it, in my opinion, is that it causes imaginations to really run wild. Somehow I doubt the "truth about 9-11" crowd would be so large if this administration was a lot more open and honest.
Exactly right on that part, marf. When paranoia florishes, it says something about the society it's florishing in, even if the particulars of the paranoid theories are false. In this case, the paranoia is being fed by secrecy and lies from the top.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/28/2006 23:42:19 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 01:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: quote:
I still don't see racism there. It seems, in fact, Clinton and Schumer were being careful to avoid it. Their expressed security concerns seem reasonable to me, and to the point.
If they were just fighting for the 45 day review, I'd agree. But Clinton, Boxer and Nelson are sponsoring a bill that would "block the sale and ban companies owned by foreign government from controlling U.S. port operations." (reference from the Coast Guard article posted by Dude.) I really do think they are willing to sacrifice a legitimate opportunity to strengthen relations with the Arab world (the only thing that is really going to end Islamic terrorism) for the sake of some short-term political gain, which they will get because of all the anti-Muslim sentiment currently among Americans.
Maybe I just also have a bias against Hillary. She's of that whole "moderate" wing of the Democratic party, like Bill, and that's why we have DOMA, and don't ask don't tell, and we're spending way more money on the drug war than under Reagan or Bush, and some poor Canadian professor got automatically (no judge) deported and lost his job at an American University because he got engaged to an American woman and dared to visit his mom in Canada in the time between applying for the license and actually tying the knot. (Poor sap didn't read the new fine print, added by insane immigration laws - another bloody thing that Clinton wouldn't veto.) As far as I'm concerned, the Clintons and democrats like them have played a huge role is disorganizing and compromising the Democratic party. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/01/2006 01:02:50 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 01:34:44 [Permalink]
|
marfknox conceded: quote:
Maybe I just also have a bias against Hillary.
Could be. But the security issue is broader than any individual the participants in the debate. I think the Coast Guard report itself (what parts of it slipped past the Administration's mind police) should be taken more seriously than any politician's rhetoric. The whole incident has also pointed out a growing arrogance of the Bush people, in refusing to communicate with Congress, even their Republican supporters there, until forced to do so.
Like two-bit Chicago ward heelers, they have also cronyized and politicized the entire security and disaster response apparatus of the US Federal government. Witness FEMA's "Brownie" and DHS's Skeletor. The result is such incompetence, is not merely greater danger (since that implies a mere potential for injury), but outright fatality for thousands of Americans and others, as proved last year (and ongoing) by the Katrina response, and daily in the misdirected war in Iraq.
Anybody suspicious of the Dubai deal is just taking into account their distrust of Bush, which they learned through hard experience. If Bush were to say that the sky is blue, people would assume it was almost any other color -- and they'd probably be right.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 03:16:42 [Permalink]
|
They need to block the sale by Thursday. There's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with the 45 day review. Apparently the deal is to go through on Thursday, with the fake review over the next 45 days to inform Congress what already occurred.
And the racism charge is straight out of the Republican Talking Points memo everyone obviously got. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/01/2006 03:18:04 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 07:06:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: quote:
Foreign ownership of ports is not an uncommon occurrence. What is uncommon is that the port would be run by a state owned small foreign government who is fickle in their relationship with us.
The other ports that are foreign owned are owned either by free standing companies or by large foreign states which are unlikely to be taken out by coup d'etat by radical extremists. UAE represents an unacceptable risk in this regard. That the vetting process appears to be cooked, is near criminal. DOD was supposed to be a part of the vetting process, but it turns out that they were never invited to the mettings on it. Congress started asking the departments listed on the vetting team if they attended the meeting for the vetting process and so far none of them has said they attended the meetings. This raises obvious questions like "who actually was in on the vetting process" and "who ok'ed this". Questions this administration chose not to answer and instead not only insisted on it's secrecy but threatened a veto of any blocking legislation.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans have been asking valid questions. The Republican pundits have been playing the Arab=terrorist card. Others are pointing out the predominate (70%) "Death to America" stance of the general population of the UAE.
You put up a pretty persuasive argument, especially in regards to the deal getting pushed through too quickly. The 45 day review seems necessary. But plenty of Dems are supporting legislation that would outright ban the transaction, regardless of the 45 day review's outcome.
Primarily due to concerns for the stability and actions of the UAE.
quote:
The most important question is whether Dubai taking over management is a security risk. I don't see how they are any more of a security risk than the other foreign company. Security is run by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Also, written into the deal with Dubai is a requirement that they must participate in a security program that is specifically for stopping smuggling and detecting illegal shipments of nuclear materials – and this is not a program that all foreign companies are required to participate in. The poor security of the UAE is not relevant since they won't be running the security.
Security is up to the individual ports and US customs rely on the port managers to inspect cargo. They will spot check from time to time but they and the Coast Guard lack the staffing to inspect every container. The Coast Guard is primarily concerned with port security in the manner of patrol of the harbors and excluding vessels from hostile nations. They usually do not board every vessel inbound to the US. If they could, there'd be a lot less Cubans in Florida.
quote:
If we're worried about the port security, US officials should beef up the security that it does and will continue to control, not undo a deal with a qualified Arab company, particularly when that company is connected with one of the US's few allies in the Arab world. If the nasty turn that Islamic culture has taken is ever going to shift so that Muslims will be at peace with the rest of the world, there must be change from within Islamic culture.
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
