Posted on 02/24/2006 1:46:34 PM PST by markedmannerf
Suddenly, many people are frightened by the sale from Britain to the United Arab Emirates of a cargo-handling company that handles cargo in six American cities. I fell into that trap, too, because I made assumptions sans facts.
It is a perfectly emotional reaction to Arabphobia. It is the same fear that caused us to move Japanese families of men, women and children from the American farms and society during WWII and put them in concentration camps for years. I can still recall the days when some thought that all crooks were Italian and called all Polish people dumb. Thank God we got rid of the Polish jokes and stopped judging people by either accents or skin color!
The facts are:
1. Dubai Ports will not have anything to do with security. America will still own and control that with its Coast Guard and Homeland Security.
2. Dubai Ports will not own the American ports; they will only manage the cargo handling under a lease.
3. The fight against this seems to be by the unions and by the Far Left who want to drive a wedge between us and the UAE.
4. If we lose the UAE friendship and its support as an ally, we could be overcome by terrorists. We are in need of their cooperation, military-intelligence, their ports, their launching pads, and their soil! Without these, prepare to have many more 9/11s and to be driven out of the Middle East!
5. Previous owners were foreign (British) and we know that England could not control terrorists. Remember the subways?
6. General Tommy Franks served in the UAE, lived there and has said that Dubai Ports runs the most efficient cargo-handling company of any. I will trust General Tommy Franks
(Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ...
That's not correct.
In fact, we are giving private companies taxpayer dollars to improve their port security.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584511/posts.
Also related:
Is having China in our ports better?
The only answer to sensible objections has been to call the objectors racist. This is exactly the strategy that failed with Harriet Miers, calling the opposition sexist. I've got a funny feeling that the same people are lining up on this issue just as they did on that one.
China cares if we nuke them. Muslims think they get eternal paradise if that happens. It makes a big difference.
Thanks for the links
I "feel" the same too, but since Franks, Pace, and others of similar trustworthiness and knowledge are ok with it, so am I.
In any case, get used to it, cuz the deal WILL happen.
Wasn't Riciin(sp) found in a apt in Britian?
Don't forget the second wave of subway attacks in Britian which thankfully wasn't successful. Then there are all the wacky Imams including that dude with the hook and eyepatch.
One of the guys I work with is of Arab ancestry. REALLY nice guy. Married, has a kid on the way. Moderate, polite, genial, etc.
We have to realize that there are Islamofascists that want to destroy us and moderate Arabs like him.
A UAE company that spends 6+ BILLION on operational rights to these ports is not going to let their operations get trashed or lost due to terrorism. They just wouldn't. There are much cheaper ways to hurt the USA for them.
Its irrational to believe this deal is about security. The anti's are driven by political opportunists who are using your natural fear and concern, mixing in some false claims, and trying to turn it into a fiasco.
There are parts of this story that ARE concerning, but not the UAE purchasing the business. The process it took seems too "inside" and the fact Bush didn't know about it appears to make him look "out of touch" but the security part is a total fabrication.
I would put a requirement (and perhaps there is one) that we have access to their networks, communications, etc with a waiver for unlimited, any-time surveillance. Maybe we did already..lets get the facts and panic later.
Japanese, Poles and Italians didn't have a route map for world domination like the islamics have with the koran.
What ports do China run?
My fiance is from the middle east I know alot of good Arab people but at the same time I dont want records of things going on in our ports over there in the middle east. And I noticed you said:
I would put a requirement (and perhaps there is one) that we have access to their networks, communications, etc with a waiver for unlimited, any-time surveillance. Maybe we did already..lets get the facts and panic later.
That right there is another reason I dont want them in our ports or any foreign country for that matter. I know we have to keep an eye on any foreign country running our ports but you have just acknowledged what I feel and that is that we have to watch these guys alot more careful than the British
I have heard LA
The flight is against Islam, and it's important we start to recognize this. Militant Islam is Islam. It's the moderate Muslims who aren't true to their religion - it's a religion of hatred, intolerance, and death. The Quran is full of these themes, and the religion was spread by military conquest and intimidation throughout it's history.
Don't allow an Arab company to be involved in our security in even the most minimal way. If we do, it's just a matter of time until some terrorist or sympathizer worms his way in and takes advantage.
Believe me, I'm not thrilled, but the alternative course would be even worse. This was no big deal until Chuckie Schumer's Union pals say potential political points to be made with the cooperation of their willing accomplices in the media.
Fact: the "operational" control and security of the ports remains the responsibility of the local port authority and the appropriate federal agencies.
Fact: the commercial operator will not have sweeping knowledge of security details, just those matters for which they have a regulatory responsibility.
Fact: DP World currently provides port services for the key port in the logistics support of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also provide port services the largest fleet of U.S. Navy combat vessels outside of the United States. This is done with the full and complete approval of the United States Military that describes DP World's performance as superior.
Fact: The United States is currently working on technologies that will allow us to examine 100% of the containers entering U.S. ports. The UAE has been partnered with us in bringing this technology on line.
I got a great "alternative course" We have a US company work in the ports.
That's very easy to say, the hard part which is always left out is what's your plan.
But all security will require liason and coordination with Dubai Ports.
I believe that the officers of Dubai Ports are loyal to their money and will try to protect the ports as best they can, but does anyone think that there won't be a single al-Quaida sympathizer among the secretaries, assistants, deputy assistants, file clerks and flunkies in Dubai who will have access to the security arangements?
Al-Quaida does not need to have a full time open chanel through security like, for instance, a drug smuggler.
Weapons of mass destruction are too rare to chance one being found in a random inspection, but if they can guarantee that they can move one container one time in complete safety, they will and an american city will die.
So9
The real thugs, IMO, is the longshoremen union.
Whoa! Is this disingenuous fear mongering supposed to gain support?
There seems to be a growing sense of desperation among supporters of this deal. The fact is the emirs need us a lot more than we would ever need them. Without our presence, they would be overrun by a neighbor or overthrown by their huge foreign population. They would lose the gambling, the prostitution, their fortunes and quite possibly their heads.
U.S. companies got out of this business...just like the demise of our merchant fleet, the unions were killing them.
Foreign companies, including one already from the UAE and one from Saudi Arabia, already manage all such facilities in this country.
"Arabaphobia", eh? Is that like "homophobia"? Am I correct in assuming it's mental illness and there's a medication for it, like there is for other 'phobias'?
You've borrowed a page from sick liberal tactics by inventing ridiculous, pejorative words and then trying to stick them onto others. Why don't you have the guts to use the terminology you really mean, namely, "islamophobia", and not try to whitewash a twisted religion by mixing it in with an ethnicity that includes Christians, Jews and others. That way, at least, your borrowed liberal tactic would be a half-honest one.
But since the President is the one who initiated this new 'conservative' tactic by insinuating the Senate was 'biased' against the middle east, it's easy to understand how his bots will follow suit.
I suppose the rationale that an islamic governemnt taking control of six of our seaports poses a national security risk, during these times of war against the very tenets of islamic supremecy and brutality, has become an obsolete one in the newly revised 'conservative' agenda. But I'm sticking to my beliefs that islam is a dangerous, deadly cult that endangers the entire world because of its desire to convert or kill all the 'infidels' according to koranic law.
If we can enlist (pay, buy, bribe) some of the leaders of these countries to help fight against "terror", (in other words fight against their own beliefs), then that's GREAT. But I don't see the need to invite them into our sea ports so they can gradually lull us to sleep while they inhale every single security procedure and container inspection nuance for eventual regurgitation into the laps of al Qaeda. It's just not worth the risk. You've got to ask the question, "why are conservatives suddenly so defensive and accepting of 'moderate' islam"? It wasn't this way ten days ago, what happened to conservative reslove?
very interesting read
I don't think that's true.
The UAE's princes are cozy with OBL, and tipped him off that we were gunning for him. They refuse to recognize Israel. The did recognize the Taliban. They funneled piles of money to Al-Queda through their banks. Of 79 votes in the UN last year, they only voted with the US 5 times and 62 times against our positions. They just don't deserve the deal, and not "because they are Arabs". It doesn't matter that they won't be in charge of security. They haven't earned a place at our table.
Maybe if they produce Bin Laden's or Zarquawi's head in a box, but not until that happens.
Many of the objections have not been sensible and there are stacks of materials on the substance of the deal arguing in favor of the sale. Meanwhile, I just left a thread where someone stated they didn't want any Muslims or Arabs involved period. I read immigration threads on a regular basis that delight in labeling people ragheads and bombing them all into oblivion. There ARE racists involved in this debate, whether you wish to acknowledge that reality or not.
But, I have consistently maintained I don't believe the majority of those that objected did so because they are prejudiced. I simply acknowledge there is a minority element that does exists. IMO, most of the objections did arise from fear but didn't evolve from race. Had we been attacked by Canada, that fear would be instinctive toward white English/French speaking European decendents. And perhaps an indirect reaction to undercurrents on the state of the borders played a factor.
BTW, since you bring up Miers. As someone that opposed it, you may remember as that debate raged opinion coaleced against confirmation. As debate has continued here, opinion is forming in favor of approval of the sale. Your funny feeling that you are dealing with the same folks is wrong.
first i believe the UAE company already operates ports in this country. what i like about this is the CIA can place people all the way into the UAE. remember keep your friends close but your enemies closer. besides when was the last time Chuckie Sleazer was right about anything?
You are most welcome.
For what it is worth, I thought this was a particularly interesting section from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Inspector General Review of the Port Security Grant Program:
DHS is learning that many private companies are unwilling to share security information and collaborate on security projects with port authorities. Port officials discussed the reluctance of private sector entities to share information about their vulnerabilities for fear of reducing their competitive advantage. Port authorities, while cognizant of this concern, want to establish integrated and port-wide security plans and security systems. This requires greater cooperation and increased information sharing on the part of private entities. While there were occasional references to the program’s goal of giving preference to port-wide projects, neither guidance nor reviewer comments indicated this was occurring. The program does not adequately reinforce the cooperative efforts between public and private entities that are required to develop an integrated approach to security.
Maybe we are more at risk from the enemy within than from UAE capitalist where 1 of 80 people are millionaires.
The statement that Dubai Ports World will not have anything to do with security is naive at best. While they will not have responsibility for security they will certainly be aware of the procedures and protocols used. Anyone who has actually worked at a job with any type of security knows quite a bit about security even though they don't personally have anything to do with its implementation or management. For example, every bank teller knows the security measures in place; every retail clerk or casino worker knows just where all the hidden cameras are. Every Dubai port worker will know the security measures that the Coast Guard and Customs Service will have in place and where the many weaknesses are.
Another thing about the UAE, is that while Lebanon is the only Arab country where conversion from Islam is legally protected, and thus the only one with anything like real freedom of religion, the UAE has genuine freedom of worship and actively supports its Christian residents: the Dubai government is footing the bill for the construction of an Orthodox (Rum in Middle Eastern terms) church, and there are about a dozen churches of both Western and Eastern confesssion (including Baptist and Latin, though mostly Syrian Jacobite and Mar Thomas) and a Hindu yogic meditation center freely operating in the UAE.
Since it's a business deal, a really stiff screening of any Muslim DPW employees sent over would encourage DPW to hire American (or send us Christian Arabs to fill middle-mangement slots). Of course that would require admitting that the problem is Islam.
So, you believe the arabs should just sit in their highchairs and let the grownups (aka, America) pat them on the head and give them a cookie when they're good little boys and girls? They ALLOW us to put OUR military bases on their soil at great personal risk from their own terrorists yet they're just not capable of doing anything other than saying yes sir to OUR numerous requests?
You might interested in this thread then: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583878/posts
The terrorists don't need DP World to get that information. They probably already have it courtesy of both the USA and the Brits.
My God, you're right! Then by all means, let's approve the deal since there's nothing more they could possibly learn!
Do you believe that every middle eastern government should be treated as terrorists?
Actually, the Brits wanted to sell the operations. Given 911 and my opposition to government imposition of who can/can't buy the ports based on race or religion, I would say that it is a price we should pay regardless of who owns the ports.
I think we should flat out have the ability to snoop on *any* international operations regardless of what the country of origin is.
My former employer, a multinational company, that has roots in the USA, is as loyal to the USA as UAE is. They only care about profits. They will sell tech to China, Iran, anyone they could get away with selling to. They don't care about the USA, but they won't sell to Iran if they think getting caught will cause them to lose profits. That is the bottom line for all of these companies. You have to make it more painful to work with terrorists/fascists, than to be honest.
Yes, thanks. That has been going on a long time.(Miami Vice) Often it is the law enforcement on the take. But, it is a corrupt blue state problem. They are so used to it they think everyone lives that way. When someone says that we have always had immigrants without problems, I say that we still don't have the maffia under control. I don't know how we get past pretending that criminals are just the loyal opposition, but it would be nice to call them on it.
Not hard at all. There is a clean way to handle things such as the port operations, and it still astonishes me that it wasn't done properly. It's been done thusly for many years, actually many decades:
1. Create an American company to handle the matter (if foreigners wish to buy in, or even buy it, that's ok);
2. Wall off the foreign investors/owners. They are silent partners. They have no say in the actual operation;
3. Create a "classified Board" composed of people with security clearances and experience in sensitive matters;
4. Appoint an American CEO and other top executives with experience and clearances.
We do this all the time with, say, foreigners who want to buy companies that manufacture parts for weapons sytems, etc. It seems the obvious solution here. Dubai would get prestige and whatever profits are generated. Americans run the thing and guarantee, so far as is possible, security. Looks like a win/win solution. For that matter, we should have done the same sort of thing with the British owners, and we should do the same thing with the Chinese and others who now have access to all kinds of potentially dangerous information thanks to their buy-ins.
I wouldn't let them sit in the high chair and wouldn't pat them on the head or give them cookies. I'd cut off all aid, stop selling them weapons, and I'd help Israel build a 100 foot wall around the Palestinians.
Most of these countries are not our friends and are downright evil (i.e. Saudi Arabia, the government of which funds the Wahabi schools that teach terrorism - and by the way, is also the country funding most of the mosques in the US, including those that preach terrorism and harbor terrorists) and allow our military bases to be there because it's in their best interest. For example, the Saudis need us to help keep their nepotist government in power. And because we give them MILLIONS in aid, and sell them the latest military weaponry.
Talking about grownups - I read a news story about a meeting of some big Arab alliance (I believe it was the Arab League, but can't recall for certain) - but I thought it gave a lot of insight to the mindset of the Arab world. The meeting broke up because the representatives were out of control and shouting insults at each other, some of them standing on thier desks and screaming things like "your mother was a goat".
There is not a single Arab or Muslim nation on the planet that respects human life, individual rights, women, etc. They have no idea what it means to be civilized - just look at the cartoon riots and the murderous actions between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Religion of PEACE??? BWAH hahahaha hahaha hahahaha...... (ROTFL)
Check out the website http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and then click the link to "List of Islamic Terror Attacks". Count up the dead, and the number of attacks, and tell me you think these people are part of the 'civilized' world.
Have you ever been outside this country?
I am not a xenophobe, I just don't trust Arabs/Muslims AS A GROUP. I do not hate individuals, nor do I advocate mistreatment of individuals.
I've been to Mexico and all over Europe, including former communist countries. I do business with a number of companies outside the U.S. None of the people in the countries I've visited or done business with have tried to kill me, my family, or any Americans at all as far as I know.
The wall was obviously a facetious remark. However, I would put restricitons on Arabs/Muslims coming into the U.S. and would block any business in an Arab nation or staffed largely by Arabs or Muslims from having anything to do with any aspect of our security. They cannot be trusted.
I notice you have nothing to say about the Arab "civilization" or the list of 3000 Islamic terror attacks.
I was able to find ONE American-owned company, which is obviously not big enough to take over P&O, but which does SOME port terminal operations:
http://www.ssamarine.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.