Posted on 02/22/2006 6:20:19 AM PST by Rennes Templar
If this is going to be a problem under DWP, then it is already a problem under the British Co ownership.
What job? Operate terminals? Where are you getting these little falsehoods? Or are you making them up as you go?
As for the UAE agreeing to the CSI program (which, along with the Container Seal Verification Regime, is an orginator and receiver regime for cargo tracking and verification) what does that have to do with the UAE operating domestic terminals?
I'm with you on this issue. It seems not coincidental that this deal is going forward at a time that tensions are escalating between the US and Iran. Case in point: The Iranian nutjob continues to bluster about disrupting oil shipments out of the Persian gulf with Mines or cruise missles. And what slice of land controls the entrance to the gulf? Why the UAE of course. There is a strategic goal here. (IMHO)
CC
See posts 22 and 30.
"And what slice of land controls the entrance to the gulf? Why the UAE of course. There is a strategic goal here."
I'd forgotten about that.
Curiouser and curiouser, makes even more sense now.
America is forbidden from owning a majority of any thing in that nation. So they are not interested in having US close.
How close is close enough? How about operating our Nuclear power plants? How about producing our Military hard wear? How about giving them control of our press ( they are already close there )
At the end of the day do you want the American dollars that come to them to fund terrorists?
Do you want a nation where a recent poll showed over 70% of the people there hate America to have full knowledge about the procedures of our ports?
Do you want a foreign GOVERNMENT to own our ports?
Do you want some of those 90% to be coming on our soil legally and for them to disappear into the population never to be found until it is to late?
Do you want them being responsible for the part of the sale that includes military contracts?
First the White house tried to paint this as raciest and that fell on its face with even conservatives dismissing the playing of the race card. Desperation is an ugly thing to watch. One has to wonder why this lame duck president is willing to use his FIRST VETO on a sale of American land to another nation. That is a question we should be asking and that the press needs to look into.
I am beginning to think the only reason we have not been attacked again is because they won already. We have already forfeited the freedom to travel without government interference, privacy on the phones and internet, the freedom to see such things as the cartoons in our papers cause the editors are terrified of retribution , so now one more step ...making major ports the property of an Islamic nation Remember when we all had a fit about the suez canal being ceded to Red China by Carter? Consistency PLEASE !
They are not in charge of security. The Coast Guard is.
"
So what do you suppose DP World was referring to when it issued this statement for the press: "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." They seem to think they'll have some responsibility for security (which, by the way, is entirely correct under current enabling legislation and regulations)."
Each company (and ship) has to submit security plans for the Coast Guard to approve.
True. And operator responsibilities (both existing and in the pipeline) further extend to the vetting of personnel and to container content, tracking, and seal verification.
That's what some people said about us teaching shady Middle Easterners how to fly aircraft without knowing how to take off or land.
indeed. I mean, what the hell could they do with pilots licenses - its not like they are going to fly planes into buildings or anything.
</9-10 thinking>
yet we now hear the same voices tell us "what could happen with the ports, nothing will change, what could they possibly do with control of port operations anyway".
Was there something wrong with letting Middle Easterners into flying school? I still don't think there is, although they should have background checks and be monitored. Security requires many levels of protection and can be done without all this hoopla. I suppose you would also prohibit an American from owning the ports if he has "too many" Middle Eastern friends?
It's a stunning PR perception problem for the White House. And they had better get it together and talk to the American people in language they understand, or this deal is dead in the water.
Statements from Bush and the Secretary of Defense saying "they didn't know about this till this weekend", only make the public suspicious that this deal is a bit "under handed"..
sw
So I take it that 9/11 thinking is to ban Middle Easteners from anything more sensitive than running a 7-11? That might make some people feel good, but it won't make us safer.
I am tired of Jorge Arbusto putting business ahead of security.
Do what the Port of Houston has done for years, the country commissioners appoint a board to run the port. This board is answerable to the voters throught country commissioners.
the UAE can buy any US assets they want, and in fact own many US assets, that do not have a security component to them.
let me ask you this simple question - the UAE currently owns parts of some high profile manhattan real estate - some Helmsley properties, the Essex House, etc. did anyone say anything about that? no, not a word.
would you allow the UAE to buy the WTC site from Silverstein? why not? does your concept of "tolerance" that we must show middle easterners extend to allowing them to buy the WTC site?
As as matter of fact, I believe that yes, there is something VERY wrong with teaching someone how to fly a plane who has no interest in learning how to take off or land, regardless of what he happens to look like, but especially Middle Easterners, who we know for a fact are by far the most likely people to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building.
Security requires many levels of protection
It sure does. We're doing a pretty good job at some of them, but I suspect we're not doing such a good job at others. There are probably still terrorist cells in this country that are here illegally.
I suppose you would also prohibit an American from owning the ports if he has "too many" Middle Eastern friends?
Please, do me a favor and just spare me the "you're a racist" stuff. If I want a lecture I can get it from CAIR or a liberal newspaper.
CC
Thanks. I noticed the same thing.
The Fox News article I found stated DPW will have control of hiring security personnel...
Hey, and it's not just about security or just about Dubai. It's about how the deal was done. And how we aren't supposed to be talking about it.
You're not a racist. I'm just pointing out that profiling doesn't provide security in some cases. This is one of them. In the airport I expect *some* profiling although I wouldn't completely trust a white guy who looks like me. For Middle Easteners buying ports, energy (not nuclear) plants, trucking companies, etc, it's something I expect since we send them 100's of billions of dollars a year. I don't really like it, but what else should we expect them to do with all that money?
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.