Sale of port rights to UAE?

[bharris]

Ok, so what I don't get it how so much misinformation can be spread and belived. From what I heard (NPR) That it's not the 'ports' that they will control but terminals in the ports. The port of Baltimore has 6 (or so) terminals most of them managed by Chinese firms the one terminal contract in question is 1/2 owned by a Danish firm and 1/2 owned by the firm being bought by the UAE firm... So really what's the problem, don't you think a having our ports terminal run by companies in China to be just as bad if not worse. I don't think Bush understimated the issue but he undersetimated is how the media can blow something so up out of porportion so it becomes an issue in the public eye that when you look and understood the entire deal there is no issue at all. They are not getting ownership of the 'port' but ownership of a contract to manage one of many cargo terminals of the port. If the other forign ownership is ok, then the fact that they are an Arab country does seem a be racist to me and I am ashamed that we as a country can be that shallow. I personally would rather see US firms runing the ports but to get incensed that it's an UAE company and not a Chinese/Danish/English/Singaporian company is misplanced sentiment.

Missa

I agree. This has exposed the real "tolerance" the disdain some of our political operatives have for other cultures, and their real lack of support for world trade.

There is NO US company that has the expertise and willingness to even bid on the port management business.

 

[Gary]

Doesn't bother me at all. The transaction has already been run through the proper governmental agencies and all came out clean. Where I see the problem is the way it is protrayed in the media and subsequently picked up by our legislatures. We are NOT selling the ports! they will still be where they always have been, the workforce will probably remain close to the same and cargo will continue to flow. PBS interviewed the president of the management company today, articulate and American! Seems there are not that many companies out there that do this type of business. He mentioned that the Quatar government provided the seed money to start the comany for the port in Dubai (sp?) and it has expanded from there. For what its worth, this gentleman stated flatly that the Quatar government, although having part ownership, does not take part in running the government.

We live in a global world, international companies abound, I see no reason a foreign company can't do business in the US (subject to the proper vetting, as was done here), we certainly do business in enough other foreign countries.

What I do find appalling is the reaction from some of our local and state government types. You would think that the mayor of Philadephia would have the resources to get a true picture of what this transaction is all about rather than spout some un-truths, half-truths and in-accuracies (on the local TV "news" shows to gain maximum exposure) which will now be taken as the true facts by the local populace.

BTW - did anybody note that Toshiba has proposed buying Westinghouse Nuclear (owned by the British)? No outrage on that!?

Gary

 

[Greebo]

The UAE has been one of our few stalwart allies in this war. The current reaction to them smacks of racism to me, and is an insult to that ally who has risked much to stand by us. Our soldiers are not fighting to eradicate Arabs or Islam, but to remove a threat to this nation. Supporting those who support us can only help achieve that goal. IMHO.

I don't know about racism - I think its more accurate to say that the reaction has been "knee-jerk". I know mine was when I heard about it on the news.

The immediate spin of the media, our Mayor and our Governor around here was, or came across as, "BUSH WANTS TERRORISTS RUNNING OUR PORTS" and like the fool that so many of us can be, I bought into it on face value without really looking into it. At first anyway.

Upon reflection, its clear that I have a lot more to learn here before I pass judgement.

 

[Missa]

Upon reflection, its clear that I have a lot more to learn here before I pass judgement.

Whew! Glad to hear you say that Greebo, for a minute there I was worry I would have to change my oppinon of you. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon too quicky sometimes, it's exaclty what the media and politicans are trying to make happen. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Missa

 

[bharris]

I don't know about racism - I think its more accurate to say that the reaction has been "knee-jerk". I know mine was when I heard about it on the news.

The immediate spin of the media, our Mayor and our Governor around here was, or came across as, "BUSH WANTS TERRORISTS RUNNING OUR PORTS" and like the fool that so many of us can be, I bought into it on face value without really looking into it. At first anyway.

Upon reflection, its clear that I have a lot more to learn here before I pass judgement.

I think a lot of folks bit on it! A case of FIRE, READY, AIM.

 

[Bill]

BTW - did anybody note that Toshiba has proposed buying Westinghouse Nuclear (owned by the British)? No outrage on that!?

Didn't know. I have a bad taste for Toshiba ever since they illegally sold high tech (5 or 7 axis) milling machines to the Soviets that allowed them to duplicate the super quiet sub propellers equipped on our fleet.

They've been in my personal ban list for years. To have them know of our nuclear technology is disturbing, given their past regard for law.

 

[MSmith]

Where is the line?

Would you allow an Iranian company to manage US ports?

Would you allow an Iraqi company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a Saudi company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a UAE company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a Russian company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a British company to manage US ports?

I seriously doubt that anybody would say yes to all. I doubt that anybody would say no to all. Where do you draw the line?

Does it make a difference if the company were majority controlled by the government of the home country?

 

[Missa]

Where is the line?

Would you allow an Iranian company to manage US ports?

Would you allow an Iraqi company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a Saudi company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a UAE company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a Russian company to manage US ports?

Would you allow a British company to manage US ports?

I seriously doubt that anybody would say yes to all. I doubt that anybody would say no to all. Where do you draw the line?

Does it make a difference if the company were majority controlled by the government of the home country?

Manage the port or manage a port terminal???? They are managing the terminal where they unload the ship and do the logistics to get the containers searched and cleared (by US customs) and get them on the road/rail not managing the port. Hum, sure sounds a lot less ominous when you say it correctly and don't leave out the qualifiers.

Missa

 

[MSmith]

Manage the port or manage a port terminal???? They are managing the terminal where they unload the ship and do the logistics to get the containers searched and cleared (by US customs) and get them on the road/rail not managing the port. Hum, sure sounds a lot less ominous when you say it correctly and don't leave out the qualifiers.

Missa

I stand by my previous statement that managing port operations gives whoever is in charge a prime opportunity to do mischief. Either overtly or by slipping in questionable employees.

 

[Brian Austin]

I stand by my previous statement that managing port operations gives whoever is in charge a prime opportunity to do mischief. Either overtly or by slipping in questionable employees.

Given the situation and their cultural background, I would suspect that the US employees of the UAE management firm would be a lot more suspect about things like this.

I really think this is yet another media "the sky is falling" kinda thing. They said the same thing about the Chinese managing the Panama Canal but nothing has happened with that one, either.

 

[wesleyj]

I just wish that the liberal press and the demycraps, would quit trying to warp everthing to their own political advantage,

This entire event is really a non-event, and not worth the hand wringing that has gone over it.

I am bothered by one thing though, why were there no american companues bidding?

 

[poadeleted1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Missa
Manage the port or manage a port terminal???? They are managing the terminal where they unload the ship and do the logistics to get the containers searched and cleared (by US customs) and get them on the road/rail not managing the port. Hum, sure sounds a lot less ominous when you say it correctly and don't leave out the qualifiers.

Missa

I stand by my previous statement that managing port operations gives whoever is in charge a prime opportunity to do mischief. Either overtly or by slipping in questionable employees.

A couple of points Mr. Smith. (1.) While it is true that managing port ops does give whoever is in charge more opportunity, please note that the state of US ports for the past 50 years or so has not been all sweetness and light. This has been mostly, but not exclusively due to criminal element infiltration of all aspects of life around ports and docks. Also, it is not an exclusive US issue - it's pretty much like that everywhere.
(2.) As Missa (or someone) noted, the PRC (Communist Chinese) have a major interest in the Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles. Where is the outrage over that?
(3.) Didn't we have an LNG tanker incident in Baltimore a while back? Who was running that show? (I am not sure, I was out of town for a while and only vaguely remember it.)

Chuck has stated in this thread, in so many words, that it is his opinion that the outrage is a kneejerk reaction and not islamophobic racism. I respectfully disagree, and among those shouting the loudest are the very ones who (now it appears, disingenuously) speak of the peace and love that islam and islamic people embody.

This is not a card game, but someone is going to have to show their cards or fold and go home. GWB has maintained that this is action (read: war) against a fringe group of radicals and that overall muslims are good decent people who want to live their lives with all the basic freedoms. The moonbat fringe of the American left has said that we are wrong to paint all muslims with a broad brsuh. So now GWB is putting the owrds into actions and the left fringe is all up in arms. Is it because the rug has been pulled out from under them, or is it because their fallacious reasoning is going to be put to the test and they don't know the outcome?

If the port management contract goes through and DWP does a bad job, they will lose the contract. If there is a security breach, because it is a national defense concern, the US Army, Navy and Coast Guard will take over (it is an already written scenario, left over from WWII) and operate the ports. If they do good, then all the Chicken Littles of the left will have to find a new reason to scurry about shouting "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." All the bases are covered.

 

[Missa]

I am bothered by one thing though, why were there no american companues bidding?

Probably because there are no capable American companies and we are all at fault for that. The only way we as Americans can change that is to go start an American port management company and win the contracts. Are you daring enough do it???

Missa

 

[Missa]

If they do good, then all the Chicken Littles of the left will have to find a new reason to scurry about shouting "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." All the bases are covered.

Ok, so I really can't believe we appear to be on the same side in this. Not only do I dislike your general rips on the "left", I think I fall more left then right. In fact I generally vote Democratic so I think your generalization are way off base.

Missa

 

[Greebo]

Birdman:

It is not only the left who reacted badly to this announcement. The VERY Republican Governor of Maryland, the Hon. Robert Erhlich, was all over the news with the VERY Democratic Mayor of Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley, when the news first came out.

So I think your generalizations are a stretch at best...I, a registered Republican, am most definately NOT fringe left, and my initial reactions to this news were common, even though I have been one to say that it is not good to broadly paint all muslims as bad. (Although of late, I do recognize that what we would define as "Good" muslims means those who are going against large chunks of their dogma.)

I think you're being rather unfair when you try and paint the idea that anyone who reacted to this news badly was on the left and only on the left.

That said, I appreciate you saying it in such a way that it's very clear that the only people who take the comments about the fringe or chicken little left as directly insulting are those who choose to do so, and not in a broad sweeping way that leaves no chance for self exclusion.

I remind everyone, again, of Responsibility #2 when reading political posts.



Now lets all play nice.

 

[woodstock]

Chuck, thank you for moderating, I know it's a thankless job.

I too noticed both sides are really up in arms about this. An op-ed writer joked maybe Bush is finally trying to be a uniter, not a divider.

 

[Missa]

I too noticed both sides are really up in arms about this. An op-ed writer joked maybe Bush is finally trying to be a uniter, not a divider.

You know the best way to unite people is to give them a common enemy!

Love it.

Missa

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

USA's security-wise, wouldn't it be to our advantage to have vested interests by the Moslim world in our infrastructure?

Just looking for the percieved rationale for this course of action.

 

[Henning]

Anyone else steamed that Bush is fevrent on selling port control interests to a company from the UAE? I think it is a blatant slap in the face to all the families who have lost children to this war. What say you?

I'm republican, voted for Bush, but I have to say now, the man is an arse.

Really, the security side of this is not issue to me. There are multiple layers of security of our port facilities, I know a bit about this having done some contract work for various agencies. I don't think outsourcing the job will change the current security situation. I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it won't get worse. Port Security is not the only and probably not the predominant law enforcement in our ports, and is commonly contracted to local law enforcement anyway.

No, the issue to me is the outsourcing in and of itself, and no, I don't like British management any more than I would the UAE. As for the UAE itself, I have been there and worked there, I have no problems with them. Saying all Arabs are the same is like saying all Americans are the same, it just doesn't hold. Now if it was a Saudi company, I might have additional thoughts. I just can't believe America can't field a competent management team, and we have to send all that money overseas.

 

[alaskaflyer]

You know the best way to unite people is to give them a common enemy!

Love it.

Missa

Isn't that the political goal of the political wing of our current administration?

Shades of Michael Crichton and Rising Sun. I think he was right then, and I think he was right now.

 

[Missa]

Isn't that the political goal of the political wing of our current administration?

Shades of Michael Crichton and Rising Sun. I think he was right then, and I think he was right now.

Yes, it is... but I think the current administration wants our common enemy to be Iraq and Al Quida, where in this situation it seem the media and aspiring political personas have made the current administration the common enemy.

Missa

 

[ScottM]

You know the best way to unite people is to give them a common enemy!

Love it.

Missa

That is why it is bad for any country to intervene in a civil war situation. Shoot, even Chang Kai Shek and Mao teemed up to expell the Japanese.

 

[Anthony]

I've got to get this off my chest...

Anthony, I don't disagree with what you wrote, per se, but America is not (should not be) for sale. Your 2nd sentence made it sound like our ports are a reward for partnering with us.

Richard, I don't think the ports or anything at the ports is being sold. The only thing for sale is the service of operating the ports, loading, unloading, etc. As others have said, the security is still being done by the USCG and U.S. Customs.

This is really a private, commercial transaction, but it does involve a VERY sensitive area, wtih large security ramifications. I think the Administration could have done a much better job communicating what this was really about and the security procedures and vetting, before the deal was announced. I'm starting to loose confidence in Scott McClellan or whomever is advising Bush on how things are communicated to the media and public. This entire fiasco could have been avoided.

 

[anonn]

Either someone is very dishonest with themselves and us or just outright stupid. Or are they just hypocrites?
****************************************************

Amen....