Dubai Ports selling out

[BigSqwert]

[Rex Kickass]

I'm solely opposed to this because its a foreign government owned company.

[Balta1701]

I'm solely opposed to this because its a foreign government owned company.

The more I think about it...the more it troubles me not only that we're selling the job to a foreign-government-owned company...but that private companies are contracted with handling the jobs in the first place. Decent commentary from "The Nation":

 

There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.

 

First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.

 

Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.

[southsider2k5]

On topic, but going with the spin that is happening in my head over this...

 

Our port system right now, for lack of a better description is a joke. Last I remember reading, less than 1% of cargo is really inspected, and many ports lack the capability to check for things such as nuclear, biological, or bomb materials within the cargo. If anyone was really interested or has been listening over the last few years, I have listed our ports as one of the two biggest potential "easy" terror targets within the US( the other being our nuclear power plants). To me, I think the US is in a hurry to get out of the port authority business because they know that is would be incredibly expensive to do what the really need to do to make our ports truely "safe", and that with the budget tightening going on, they know they can't get the money to really do it. Everyone is so focused on the airports, airlines, etc, that you never hear many of the other prime targets being talked about, and I think this is a big part of wanting to get this sale done. I really believe the US wants someone else to blame when (notice not "if") the holes in our port security get used against us.

[Rex Kickass]

Or instead, we could just fund the cash necessary to upgrade port security.

[southsider2k5]

Or instead, we could just fund the cash necessary to upgrade port security.

 

That would never happen. If GWB were to submit the defense budget actually necesary to cover every vulnerability in the USA, we would never hear the end of the screaming about the budget deficits. Even with a 7% increase in defense, not including the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, I keep hearing about how much money is being spent there. Can you imagine the outrage on the hill if we tacked on another 20% or so to fix all of these holes?

[Balta1701]

Our port system right now, for lack of a better description is a joke.  Last I remember reading, less than 1% of cargo is really inspected, and many ports lack the capability to check for things such as nuclear, biological, or bomb materials within the cargo.

I believe it's higher than 1% based on readings since this controversy erupted, but it's definately less than 5%. Kerry tried to make port security an issue in 2004, but it didn't really gain traction.

[FlaSoxxJim]

On topic, but going with the spin that is happening in my head over this...

 

Our port system right now, for lack of a better description is a joke.  Last I remember reading, less than 1% of cargo is really inspected, and many ports lack the capability to check for things such as nuclear, biological, or bomb materials within the cargo.  If anyone was really interested or has been listening over the last few years, I have listed our ports as one of the two biggest potential "easy" terror targets within the US( the other being our nuclear power plants).  To me, I think the US is in a hurry to get out of the port authority business because they know that is would be incredibly expensive to do what the really need to do to make our ports truely "safe", and that with the budget tightening going on, they know they can't get the money to really do it.  Everyone is so focused on the airports, airlines, etc, that you never hear many of the other prime targets being talked about, and I think this is a big part of wanting to get this sale done.  I really believe the US wants someone else to blame when (notice not "if") the holes in our port security get used against us.

As far as who would get blamed when something happens, you know the buck won't stop with the contracted companies. It will stop with the government that approved the contracts.

 

You are right about the lack of container inspection, but at least for the one dock at the NY/NJ port that is going to ba taken over by Dubai Ports World, the numbers are not quite as bad as you or I had heeard. A very good NPR piece this morning on that dock stated that all of the containers go through nuclear inspectors, and if they get a hit they run a second scan with a different set of equipment. They said that almost 10% of the containers also get further spot check inspections, beter than the

[Balta1701]

That would never happen.  If GWB were to submit the defense budget actually necesary to cover every vulnerability in the USA, we would never hear the end of the screaming about the budget deficits.  Even with a 7% increase in defense, not including the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, I keep hearing about how much money is being spent there.  Can you imagine the outrage on the hill if we tacked on another 20% or so to fix all of these holes?

Yet, despite all the screaming about deficits...the option of calling for a couple percent across the board tax increase to cover things like upgrading port and power plant security isn't even considered.

[Balta1701]

You are right about the lack of container inspection, but at least for the one dock at the NY/NJ port that is going to ba taken over by Dubai Ports World, the numbers are not quite as bad as you or I had heeard.  A very good NPR piece this morning on that dock stated that all of the containers go through nuclear inspectors, and if they get a hit they run a second scan with a different set of equipment.  They said that almost 10% of the containers also get further spot check inspections, beter than the

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the inspection numbers at the NY/NJ ports are the highest in the country. I believe there's a much higher volume of container traffic flowing through places on the West Coast which receive the goods produced in Asia...i.e. the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, or the port of New Orleans (before Katrina, I have no idea of its numbers now).

 

L.A. and Long Beach are about #7 and #8 in the world in terms of numbers of containers, and New Orleans was #3 in the world in terms of volume going through it before Katrina. Houston was #6 on that list.Link

[southsider2k5]

Yet, despite all the screaming about deficits...the option of calling for a couple percent across the board tax increase to cover things like upgrading port and power plant security isn't even considered.

 

Nationwide people ballot inicatvies for tax increases for a miriad of activities. I would be shocked if Americans would be willing to pay more in taxes for something that most people don't even take seriously as a threat. You know as well as I do that most Americans don't tend to be proactive when it comes to their pocketbooks. Heck even after Katrina I haven't heard a big groundswell of people asking for a tax increase to protect against another natural disaster like this. Basically the issue has gone away dispite the fact nothing has really been fixed yet.

[NorthSideSox72]

That the people arguing against this are hypocrites.  They are profiling.

 

So, you're going to assume that people arguing against this must not have a differentiated reason, and therefore they are hypocrites. The assumption is false. The comparison is apples and oranges to me, thats why its different.

 

And I see you are neatly not expressing a view on this. Are you OK with racial profiling of Arab-looking folks at airports? How about black people in sooped up cars?

[BigSqwert]

Granted this is 2 years old but just shows you the attitude of the people of the UAE. Why do we want a company that is owned by a goverment, where the people hate Americans, control our ports??

 

"Arab/Islamic hostility toward American policy translates into enmity for the U.S. as a whole. A March 2004 Pew Research Center poll of four Muslim countries found unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbering favorable views by 61 to 21 percent in Pakistan, 63 percent to 30 percent in Turkey, 68 to 27 percent in Morocco, and a remarkable 93 percent to 5 percent in Jordan. A Zogby International study taken three months later found even deeper hostility toward the United States in six Arab states: those with unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbered those with favorable views by 69 percent to 20 percent in Lebanon, 73 percent to 14 percent in the UAE, 88 percent to 11 percent in Morocco, 78 percent to 15 percent in Jordan, 94 percent to 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 98 percent to 2 percent in Egypt."

 

Source: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12645

[NorthSideSox72]

Granted this is 2 years old but just shows you the attitude of the people of the UAE.  Why do we want a company that is owned by a goverment, where the people hate Americans, control our ports??

 

"Arab/Islamic hostility toward American policy translates into enmity for the U.S. as a whole. A March 2004 Pew Research Center poll of four Muslim countries found unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbering favorable views by 61 to 21 percent in Pakistan, 63 percent to 30 percent in Turkey, 68 to 27 percent in Morocco, and a remarkable 93 percent to 5 percent in Jordan. A Zogby International study taken three months later found even deeper hostility toward the United States in six Arab states: those with unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbered those with favorable views by 69 percent to 20 percent in Lebanon, 73 percent to 14 percent in the UAE, 88 percent to 11 percent in Morocco, 78 percent to 15 percent in Jordan, 94 percent to 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 98 percent to 2 percent in Egypt."

 

Source: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12645

 

1. This is about the company in question, not the people of the UAE

2. Never trust a Zogby poll. His methods are shoddy at best.

[southsider2k5]

Granted this is 2 years old but just shows you the attitude of the people of the UAE.  Why do we want a company that is owned by a goverment, where the people hate Americans, control our ports??

 

"Arab/Islamic hostility toward American policy translates into enmity for the U.S. as a whole. A March 2004 Pew Research Center poll of four Muslim countries found unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbering favorable views by 61 to 21 percent in Pakistan, 63 percent to 30 percent in Turkey, 68 to 27 percent in Morocco, and a remarkable 93 percent to 5 percent in Jordan. A Zogby International study taken three months later found even deeper hostility toward the United States in six Arab states: those with unfavorable views of the U.S. outnumbered those with favorable views by 69 percent to 20 percent in Lebanon, 73 percent to 14 percent in the UAE, 88 percent to 11 percent in Morocco, 78 percent to 15 percent in Jordan, 94 percent to 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 98 percent to 2 percent in Egypt."

 

Source: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12645

 

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but is it that we shouldn't be doing business with companies in countries that have unfavorable views of us?

[BigSqwert]

1. This is about the company in question, not the people of the UAE

2. Never trust a Zogby poll.  His methods are shoddy at best.

Just saying that 7 out of 10 of the people working for this company hate Americans. Seeing that this is a company that is owned by a nation that has ties with terrorism raises red flags.

[BigSqwert]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but is it that we shouldn't be doing business with companies in countries that have unfavorable views of us?

I know this is a stretch but I compare it to letting a state-owned German company take over a port in Poland in the 30s.

[Controlled Chaos]

So, you're going to assume that people arguing against this must not have a differentiated reason, and therefore they are hypocrites.  The assumption is false.  The comparison is apples and oranges to me, thats why its different.

 

And I see you are neatly not expressing a view on this.  Are you OK with racial profiling of Arab-looking folks at airports?  How about black people in sooped up cars?

 

When this first came out, before their were any facts on the company....people were against it. I was against it and the first reason was because it's an Arab country. There's my view.

 

I don't have a problem with asking an extra question or two to young arab males at the airport. I do have a problem with airlines getting fined if they have 2 arabs being questoined at the same time.

[southsider2k5]

I know this is a stretch but I compare it to letting a state-owned German company take over a port in Poland in the 30s.

 

So are you proposing quit doing business in China, France, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, etc?

 

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

[BigSqwert]

So are you proposing quit doing business in China, France, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, etc?

 

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

No. Just don't want foreign state-owned companies controlling our infrastructure.

[NorthSideSox72]

When this first came out, before their were any facts on the company....people were against it.  I was against it and the first reason was because it's an Arab country. There's my view.

 

I don't have a problem with asking an extra question or two to young arab males at the airport.  I do have a problem with airlines getting fined if they have 2 arabs being questoined at the same time.

Then by your logic, you are either a hypocrite, or you favor racial profiling in general. So since you are apparently OK with profiling, you are OK with cops targeting blacks? This was your argument, by the way, that if you are against this deal, you are a hypocrite because it was profiling.

 

And do you have any evidence of airlines being fined for questioning 2 Arabs at once, or is that just an "illustration"?

 

I was against this deal, and am still against it, because the company is controlled by a government who seems OK with terrorism (and might even support it), and a company whose ports are obviously questionable in their security record. And further, now learning more and more, it seems even more clear that this deal did not follow process, and was effected by some underhanded dealings without our own government.

[BigSqwert]

I was against this deal, and am still against it, because the company is controlled by a government who seems OK with terrorism (and might even support it), and a company whose ports are obviously questionable in their security record.  And further, now learning more and more, it seems even more clear that this deal did not follow process, and was effected by some underhanded dealings without our own government.

Yeah...what he said.

[southsider2k5]

No.  Just don't want foreign state-owned companies controlling our infrastructure.

 

Then what do opinion polls have to do with that? Would it have been OK after 9/11 when the whole world held a favorable opinion of the US?

[kapkomet]

Remember that everything in China is "state-owned"

 

And that poll graph - I call bulls*** on that just because of the way it's worded.

 

And these people hate AMERICANS is not true. They hate the GOVERNMENT of America. I've been there, I know this... although, that's a different spin... something I haven't yet touched on. They LOVE Americans. You know why? Because we give them money. If we didn't, we might as well be a turd pile laying in the road that they walk over.

 

The culture is so different, especially in Dubai (UAE). I have a lot more to say on this, but I don't know how much time I have or if anyone cares.

Edited February 22, 2006 by kapkomet

[BigSqwert]

Then what do opinion polls have to do with that? 

 

The point was that the government there seems to support terrorism, they are 1 of only 3 nations that recognized the Taliban, 2 of the hijackers were from the country, the UAE military funded a hijacker in Germany, and 7 out of 10 of their citizens probably (my opinion) wouldn't mind if something terrible happened on our soil.

 

The poll was just another reason, maybe not a good one, to raise an eyebrow.

Edited February 22, 2006 by BigSqwert