NationStates Jolt Archive

The US administration has outsourced the operation of six large US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the company Dubai Ports World (controlled by the UAE gov't) would control the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Think about it for a moment:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

A number of senators have written a letter of complaint regarding this decision. I'm not an American, but if I were, I'd seriously consider sending these senators some letters of support.

To see the letter and the names of the signing senators:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf

To see an article about the issue:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185107,00.html

And yes, that is Fox News bringing this issue forward. (Yes, I was surprised too.)

No sir, I don't like it.

I thought port security was supposed to be a big issue in North America - particularly since there is no way to search every container that comes into the US and Canada.

There have certainly been more than enough accusations of terrorists crossing the border from Canada - and yet this decision would appear to be making port security more insecure. What's the deal?

Written your senator/congressman yet?

It's no different to having mail delivered by a German-owned company in the UK.

Really? Is the mail service often used to smuggle people, drugs, weapons, etc into the country (the way containers are)?

What's the big fuss? That's how business works.

So, if port security was outsourced to a government controlled company in Iran, Syria, or North Korea, you'd be okay with that?

What's the big fuss? That's how business works.

The big fuss is that the administration is crying about how porous our borders are and how easy it is for terrorists to get into the country, and then at the same time making it easier for terrorists to get into the country by outsourcing some of our major ports to a terrorist-sympathizing government.

The big fuss is that the administration is crying about how porous our borders are and how easy it is for terrorists to get into the country, and then at the same time making it easier for terrorists to get into the country by outsourcing some of our major ports to a terrorist-sympathizing government.

But, as money is the American God, outsourcing to the highest bidder, a nation that just happens to be a terrorist sypathiser, is common practice and it's their own fault.

But, as money is the American God, outsourcing to the highest bidder, a nation that just happens to be a terrorist sypathiser, is common practice and it's their own fault.

Aye, but when the administration does this, it loses a lot of the weight behind their words when they say we need to tighten our borders against terrorists. It's hard to listen to them and consider what they have to say about the issue when they go against the very thing that they themselves say.

Aye, but when the administration does this, it loses a lot of the weight behind their words when they say we need to tighten our borders against terrorists. It's hard to listen to them and consider what they have to say about the issue when they go against the very thing that they themselves say.

It's a sad fact that idiots somehow manage to weasel their way into power. I've never taken them seriously.

P&O Nedlloyd are selling their port management business to the same company.

Ports are extremely expensive things, and they do not appear on the market very often, so they are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them. There are only three companies in the world capable of buying entire groups of them, one is Dubai Ports World, one is Maersk (which owns P&O Nedlloyd already along with a fifth of the world's shipping), and the other is some Singapore-based company whose name I cannot recall, but which has not bid as high lately.

The fact is, Dubai, Netherlands and Singapore own world shipping. America doesn't, and can't really complain when stuff changes hands. This time the contract goes to Dubai, and there is nothing politically sinistr about it, they have just built a massively successful business and are willing to spend the cash. That's the beauty of capitalism.

There may be nothing directly political in this, but the "beauty" of capitalism seems to help the erosion of what we consider democracy.

There may be nothing directly political in this, but the "beauty" of capitalism seems to help the erosion of what we consider democracy.
The same thing can equally be said about Microsoft, WalMart, and any other group of monopolistic entities. Fundamentally, capitalism encourages the generation and accumulation of wealth. In almost every industry of note, one sees a historical trend towards consolidation of power in the hands of a relatively small number of operators.

Where regulatory mechanisms break up a monopoly (eg UK and Russian energy systems), it gradually re-establishes itself.

There may be nothing directly political in this, but the "beauty" of capitalism seems to help the erosion of what we consider democracy.
Why? Even if it's foreign capital, the company still has to follow US regulations, admit US inspectors and keep with US law, as determined by US citizens (one hopes).

If there are failures it will be with your systems and not necessarily with the company. There are no guarantees that another company would be more or less inclined to break the law.

Meh ... I'm indifferent. I do not live in fear.

IF it's true that this organization belongs to a region that actively supports terrorism, that's an interesting development...
My father and I have discussed potential attack points for potential future terrorist attacks, to see where the most fear could be generated...
One thing we talked about was an attack with warheads launched from ships around the NY area...

"New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."

IF they sympathize with terrorists...
And IF they can get some short range warheads aboard...
I'd just like us all to stop for a moment and reflect on the possibilities of another synchronous terrorist attack on the US, with missiles hitting all of the cities listed above.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen...
But then, it wasn't "likely" that terrorists would hijack US planes and fly them into buildings, either.

But then, it wasn't "likely" that terrorists would hijack US planes and fly them into buildings, either.

That always struck me as an awful waste of perfectly good airplanes.

IF it's true that this organization belongs to a region that actively supports terrorism, that's an interesting development...
My father and I have discussed potential attack points for potential future terrorist attacks, to see where the most fear could be generated...
One thing we talked about was an attack with warheads launched from ships around the NY area...

"New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."

IF they sympathize with terrorists...
And IF they can get some short range warheads aboard...
I'd just like us all to stop for a moment and reflect on the possibilities of another synchronous terrorist attack on the US, with missiles hitting all of the cities listed above.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen...
But then, it wasn't "likely" that terrorists would hijack US planes and fly them into buildings, either.

I'm inclined to think that smuggling of unwanted people and weapons into North America would be more likely than ships launching nuclear weapons. And a lot easier.

I'm inclined to think that smuggling of unwanted people and weapons into North America would be more likely than ships launching nuclear weapons. And a lot easier.

I didn't say nukes... getting nuclear material anywhere is hard.
Conventional warheads, although not doing as much damage, launched from all of those ports simultaneously (or near to it) would cause mass panick worldwide, I think. It'd be the analysts afterwards who would say, "At least it wasn't nukes" but at the time it happened, it'd probably be as devastating as non-nuclear-warhead airplanes attacking buildings on US soil.

Okay, this is bullsh*t if I've seen it.
The free market and free trade have their limits at the point where you're undermiming national security

Really? Is the mail service often used to smuggle people, drugs, weapons, etc into the country (the way containers are)?

Its used to smuggle drugs in.

Getting an immigrant into an envelope would take some doing however. If anyone manages to do that fair play to them :P