batman527
Banned
Ya I'd say they're out to hurt us. Here they go again! Oh wait...
Delayed For Appeasement
Delayed For Appeasement
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
UAE managing our ports
- Thread starter S.O.B.
- Start date
gaijin6423
Ask me about ninjas!
This is definitely not about racism. It's about security and the inherent lack of it in a rapidly globalizing economy.
In a perfect world, there would be no problem with a company bidding to run ports better, cheaper, and more efficiently. In a perfect world, though, the lines between religion, buisiness and government would be finely drawn. As I've mentioned in the past, we don't live in the land of gumdrop rainbows and cotton candy clouds. The lines between those three major entities are blurred in most cases, and downright nonexistent in many others. If you doubt me, look at China's state-run businesses, the theological reprecussions/responsibilities of lending someone money in an islamic country, or even our government's involvement in some matters here.
It's not racism to seriously question a corporation's intentions and capabilities when something as vital as our major shipping ports are in question. And it just makes good sense to stop and take a serious, serious look at the matter when that corporation is from a region/culture that has vividly displayed its violent level of contempt for our country and way of life. Especially when the culture in question has such blurred distinctions between what constitutes good business and what makes for being faithful to their god. I, for one, find it hard to believe that they are either willing or able to make such a distinction.
In a perfect world, there would be no problem with a company bidding to run ports better, cheaper, and more efficiently. In a perfect world, though, the lines between religion, buisiness and government would be finely drawn. As I've mentioned in the past, we don't live in the land of gumdrop rainbows and cotton candy clouds. The lines between those three major entities are blurred in most cases, and downright nonexistent in many others. If you doubt me, look at China's state-run businesses, the theological reprecussions/responsibilities of lending someone money in an islamic country, or even our government's involvement in some matters here.
It's not racism to seriously question a corporation's intentions and capabilities when something as vital as our major shipping ports are in question. And it just makes good sense to stop and take a serious, serious look at the matter when that corporation is from a region/culture that has vividly displayed its violent level of contempt for our country and way of life. Especially when the culture in question has such blurred distinctions between what constitutes good business and what makes for being faithful to their god. I, for one, find it hard to believe that they are either willing or able to make such a distinction.
DanielSon said:
You're aware that Dubai Ports World is a government-run company and not an independent, aren't you? So you're ok with foreign governments controlling shipping terminals in the US? Foreign governments known for some of the most porous ports in the world? Foreign governments with some of the highest instances of arms smuggling and hijacking occuring in their ports? Foreign governments that were a midway point in the "illegal sale of nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan?" Foreign governments whose state-run banks handled millions in Al Qaeda's funds? Foreign governments who won't be held to the same standards as the previous owners due to special deals brokered with the White House that relaxed previous "routine restrictions?"
Still think it's "just racism?"
Benson
New Member
Some of you are making it sound as if Osama Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi or Arabs wearing towels are going to be walking around are ports inspecting our crates... come on relax.
From what we know about the President and this administration is that they have taken a harder line on security than almost any other administration most of our lifetimes. I highly doubt that our president would allow a foregin company to manage our ports if he doubted the countries security at all. Moreover, this is definantly not racist or likely about savoring mid-east relations. Afterall, we invaded Iraq, and at present i doubt the mid-east could think worse of us.
With regards to the ports specifically. Since the Dubai Ports World took over the the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation company which manages the port facilities the British employees are still remaining employed by Dubai Ports World. Moreover, the Administration said yesterday "U.S. agencies such as the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection service will be in charge of the security of the ports." So,
Regarding the U.A.E. ... Let me reiterate Dubai bought the British company it is not as though we called them and asked them to come run our ports. Yes, it is important to acknowledge that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and that some of the financing for 9/11 went through Emirate banks. However, this is pre 9/11 and Emirate Government (after "internal" investigation was aware of such actions). With hindsight being 20/20 is it really the UAE's fault? maybe...
the U.S. Since 9/11 security in the UAE has been significantly heightened. The UAE were one of the first countries to put significantly more restrictive security measures on cargo vessels heading to the US. i was their before and after 9/11 their is much more security. For example, i could not get into the Hilton Hotel in Abu Dhabi over christmas without my passport and a second form of identification. This was not the case in 2000 when i visited for a sports trip.
Finally, it is important to remember that the UAE's been a crucial ally for us in the War on Terror. The UAE has allowed us to use their oil fields. This is an important middle eastern ally we should keep.
From what we know about the President and this administration is that they have taken a harder line on security than almost any other administration most of our lifetimes. I highly doubt that our president would allow a foregin company to manage our ports if he doubted the countries security at all. Moreover, this is definantly not racist or likely about savoring mid-east relations. Afterall, we invaded Iraq, and at present i doubt the mid-east could think worse of us.
With regards to the ports specifically. Since the Dubai Ports World took over the the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation company which manages the port facilities the British employees are still remaining employed by Dubai Ports World. Moreover, the Administration said yesterday "U.S. agencies such as the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection service will be in charge of the security of the ports." So,
Regarding the U.A.E. ... Let me reiterate Dubai bought the British company it is not as though we called them and asked them to come run our ports. Yes, it is important to acknowledge that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and that some of the financing for 9/11 went through Emirate banks. However, this is pre 9/11 and Emirate Government (after "internal" investigation was aware of such actions). With hindsight being 20/20 is it really the UAE's fault? maybe...
the U.S. Since 9/11 security in the UAE has been significantly heightened. The UAE were one of the first countries to put significantly more restrictive security measures on cargo vessels heading to the US. i was their before and after 9/11 their is much more security. For example, i could not get into the Hilton Hotel in Abu Dhabi over christmas without my passport and a second form of identification. This was not the case in 2000 when i visited for a sports trip.Finally, it is important to remember that the UAE's been a crucial ally for us in the War on Terror. The UAE has allowed us to use their oil fields. This is an important middle eastern ally we should keep.
goosegagnon2
Member
this is getting interesting 
im going to make some popcorn.
im going to make some popcorn.
KBayDog said:
Funny, I had a professor play the race card on this topic today. She followed it up with "...but I don't want to agree with Bush on anything, so I'm neutral on this." And she gets paid to teach other people...
Couple problems I have, although, I'm undecided on the issue, but leaning towards letting the company buy it:
1) Since when does the President have the power to control who owns what? I understand that it was a power given to the executive branch for businesses that own operations that could be crucial or endanger ports, but still, I feel that the President's power needs to be better monitored.
2) Ports and Airports, although "private" still are under federal watch no matter who owns them. DHS and the Coast Guard are still going to inspect them. That 10% number everyone brings up, while a valid point doesn't change the fact that a) that number doesn't change with who owns it or b) the owners aren't the ones decided which containers are inspected. That won't change. Just like the TSA maintains Airport/Airline Security, the DHS and USCG will still maintain Homeland/Port Security.
3) Doesn't the fact that Arabs "owning" the port and it causing public uproar shed light on the fact to the otherwise non-suspecting public that we do need to do something more with our port situation? Each container goes under some "form" of inspection, but only ~10% as mentioned above are inspected enough to ensure security. The fact that Arabs are going to own a port means that the public will concentrate on port security more, something the nation has been desperately in need of.
4) Public Accountibility - These Arabs are smart businessmen. They don't want to Fvck this chance up; ports are big business. If they were to make a mistake, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. If you don't think they are going to focus a huge amount on private security, you're wrong.
5) The Workers Aren't Changing - it's upper management that will. The guys on the ground are still going to be the guys on the ground doing the real work. Having an Abdul instead of a Tom own it doesn't change that fact nor does it change the job to be done.
More to come later? Perhaps.
1) Since when does the President have the power to control who owns what? I understand that it was a power given to the executive branch for businesses that own operations that could be crucial or endanger ports, but still, I feel that the President's power needs to be better monitored.
2) Ports and Airports, although "private" still are under federal watch no matter who owns them. DHS and the Coast Guard are still going to inspect them. That 10% number everyone brings up, while a valid point doesn't change the fact that a) that number doesn't change with who owns it or b) the owners aren't the ones decided which containers are inspected. That won't change. Just like the TSA maintains Airport/Airline Security, the DHS and USCG will still maintain Homeland/Port Security.
3) Doesn't the fact that Arabs "owning" the port and it causing public uproar shed light on the fact to the otherwise non-suspecting public that we do need to do something more with our port situation? Each container goes under some "form" of inspection, but only ~10% as mentioned above are inspected enough to ensure security. The fact that Arabs are going to own a port means that the public will concentrate on port security more, something the nation has been desperately in need of.
4) Public Accountibility - These Arabs are smart businessmen. They don't want to Fvck this chance up; ports are big business. If they were to make a mistake, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. If you don't think they are going to focus a huge amount on private security, you're wrong.
5) The Workers Aren't Changing - it's upper management that will. The guys on the ground are still going to be the guys on the ground doing the real work. Having an Abdul instead of a Tom own it doesn't change that fact nor does it change the job to be done.
More to come later? Perhaps.
DanMav1156 said:
I'm no lawyer, but at first glance this looks like the international equivalent of anti-trust law. Any company that wants to completely buy out another company needs a thumbs up from the right people first. That's probably why Bush et. al. didnt know about the details until after the fact: because the "approval" was nothing more than red tape.
I know some of you have been deployed "over there," but has anyone had ACTUAL 'civilian' shipping experience with UAE ports? I'm guessing most people on here will answer "no" to that, including me. Who we should ask are the civilian sailors running these vessels to foreign ports and ask them how other countries do it. If UAE, along with Dubai Ports World actually does do it better, I see no issue with this. Especially if Ports World is a contributor in how the UAE runs its own ports.
For an example and a comparison, (maybe A-4's or HAL could help with this.) Does any other country run their airport systems better than us? I'm almost willing to say "yes" on this. (Please cover my six on this you commercial types. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.) If I'm right, I see no reason why we shouldn't entertain doing something better.
For an example and a comparison, (maybe A-4's or HAL could help with this.) Does any other country run their airport systems better than us? I'm almost willing to say "yes" on this. (Please cover my six on this you commercial types. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.) If I'm right, I see no reason why we shouldn't entertain doing something better.
pittflyer said:
Well, according to the laws of the free market, the people willing to buy out the current owners feel they can do it more cost efficiently (read: they feel they can make more profits than the current owners do who are willing to sell it), so clearly, they must have some plan in mind.
The more I think about this, the less opposed I am to it.
The current dust-up is political. We have lots of offshore operational control ALREADY in our ports. It's been going on for over 10 years. Here's the way I look at this stuff --- I could care less what "nationality" runs our port facilities --- as long as they are AMERICANS ... because:
When it concerns security and/or the national interest --- Where does it stop??? Hello ???
"Outsource" port operations??? Don't stop there --- if it's more "efficient" (???) ...why not "outsource" the airlines ... shipping lines .... trucking lines ... telecommunications companies .... nuclear plants (oh, wait !!! you mean there is a "law" against that ???) .... electrical supply utilities .... water, food manufacturing ..... hell, why don't we just hire out the military requirements of the U.S. ??? You guys could work for .... say, Mexico ???
It would be cheaper ..... isn't that what it's all about??? :icon_rast
When it concerns security and/or the national interest --- Where does it stop??? Hello ???
"Outsource" port operations??? Don't stop there --- if it's more "efficient" (???) ...why not "outsource" the airlines ... shipping lines .... trucking lines ... telecommunications companies .... nuclear plants (oh, wait !!! you mean there is a "law" against that ???) .... electrical supply utilities .... water, food manufacturing ..... hell, why don't we just hire out the military requirements of the U.S. ??? You guys could work for .... say, Mexico ???
It would be cheaper ..... isn't that what it's all about??? :icon_rast
Benson said:
True ... they have. But they did it post 9/11 in their own interest. It's called ... mutual benefit.
Normally, my pro-business, pro-capitalist, pro-Republican, pro-whatever-it-takes-to-get-the-job-done inclinations would put me on the side of the administration. But being a good Muslin/Arab ally in the WOT doesn't necessitate giving the Muslim/Arab ally a political pay-off, does it??
This deal is all about $$$$ --- make no mistake. The political sh!t-storm it has created among the clueless politicians and media is all about politics -- make no mistake. The precedent for "outsourcing" port operations was set during Clinton's administration. Where were Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton then ???
One other thing ... if congress kills the deal, the American taxpayer is on the hook for the several billions the contract represents ...
... I love how this "system" works.*edit* O.K. ... that's it. I'm gonna' become a liberal, Hillary democrat. Where do I sign up ... ????