NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (Feb. 19) - U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

The port of Miami, port of Newark, port of Baltimore, port of New York and port of New Orleans are all being sold to the arabs.

Discuss if you think the government is insane and needs to be put down, or correct in doing such an action.

I for one cant beleive anyone would be stupid enough to sell our huge international ports to our enemies, or someone who could help our enemies.

There was a thread on this already..

We already went over this. Basically, in the world of international shipping, you have three choices, one of which is Dubai. They just managed to outbid the others. It's not going to mean much. Those ports will earn Dubai way too much money to fuck around with.

There was a thread on this already..

Well I didnt see it....

We already went over this. Basically, in the world of international shipping, you have three choices, one of which is Dubai. They just managed to outbid the others. It's not going to mean much. Those ports will earn Dubai way too much money to fuck around with.

So your not worried that we have arab owned ports?

I mean....our enemies DO come from the arab world, at this moment in time.

For the government to have a blocked this sale would have been just more unessecary meddling in the free market. I'm glad they left alone.
BTW, those particular Arabs are not our enemies. Closer economic ties to the region will result in stability for all, as long as our military doesn't follow.

So your not worried that we have arab owned ports?

I mean....our enemies DO come from the arab world, at this moment in time.

No, because like I said, those ports will earn Dubai way too much money for them to mess around. And as far as Middle Eastern nations go, the UAE is rather moderate.

No, because like I said, those ports will earn Dubai way too much money for them to mess around. And as far as Middle Eastern nations go, the UAE is rather moderate.

Hmm...you do have a point and I have heard that the Emirates are pretty moderate too.

It just makes me nervous, thats all.

Hmm...you do have a point and I have heard that the Emirates are pretty moderate too.

It just makes me nervous, thats all.

Well there's not much that can really be done without government intervention into a legal acquisition. P&O Steam Navigation Co. was bought by DP World.

Selling ports is not a bad thing. If you game you can come to Australia and buy Port Adelaide if you want.

I don't particularly want private profit in charge of national security, regardless of whether the owners of the company are Arabs or Japanese or anything else.

Hmm...you do have a point and I have heard that the Emirates are pretty moderate too.

It just makes me nervous, thats all.

Or maybe you just need to get over this notion that Muslims are a hivemind of Bin Ladin supporters.

:p

I don't particularly want private profit in charge of national security, regardless of whether the owners of the company are Arabs or Japanese or anything else.
Fascist

I don't particularly want private profit in charge of national security, regardless of whether the owners of the company are Arabs or Japanese or anything else.

What if it were an American corporation?

So what's the problem? I like Dubai, and if a job deal for my dad hadn't gone bust a few months back, I might have been living there by now.

So no, it certainly doesn't worry me any more than it worries me that the Chinese are buying US companies and even the Panama Channel. And that doesn't worry me either.

I like Arabs by that i mean i like to steal their Merchant Vessels.
Hmmm the spices oh the spices.
Yarrgh!

It doesnt matter who OWNS the port, it is still mostly American workers. It is also still customs and the coast guard's job to screen and protect cargo, so there really isnt as big of an issue as it seems.

I like Arabs by that i mean i like to steal their Merchant Vessels.
Hmmm the spices oh the spices.
Yarrgh!

You Barbary Coast Pirate you... do we have to come over to Tripoli again and remind you plundering booties... er, piracy is a no no?

:D

If it has to be a nation in the Middle East, I'm glad its a profit-conscious nation like Dubai. ^_^

Psh better get started on learning Arabian and Chinese. ;)

So what's the problem? I like Dubai, and if a job deal for my dad hadn't gone bust a few months back, I might have been living there by now.

So no, it certainly doesn't worry me any more than it worries me that the Chinese are buying US companies and even the Panama Channel. And that doesn't worry me either.

The Chinese are buying the panama canal????

If they offer the best price and the best terms for the deal, then they should be allowed to purchase the terminals. And in all honesty, it's the UAE companies that are buying them, you know, the most Western of the Islamic nations in the Middle East, so there's no real risk of anything happening.

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by allowing terrorists to attack the sites, given that the UAE has nothing to gain from terrorism? If anything, this would make them more secure.

If any nation in the world wants to buy any of our assets and they offer a price and deal that is superior to any other offer, the government should get the fuck out of it and let them. This is a world economy, and the US has to compete with other nations whether the whining bastards in Congress like it or not. I'm tired of them stepping in and doing what's "best" for American interests, because they have no idea what the hell is best for America, and never have.

This is just as bad as the CNOOC-Unocal deal, and is nothing more than an attempt to restrict the free market in favor of imaginary economic security...it's the worst kind of economic policy, economic nationalism.

O the irony of outsourcing and the blather about the freemarket coming home to roost...

O the irony of outsourcing and the blather about the freemarket coming home to roost...

What's wrong with outsourcing? I mean, if someone can do the job for less money, and the savings are greater than the loss in quality (if any), there's no real argument against outsourcing other than Americans losing their jobs...which is delightfully ironic since jobs were "outsourced" to America from Europe for a long time since our labor costs were a lot lower.

In light of current events, and in the nature of the poll questions ...

*ahem*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002816816_ports20.html
Criticism mounts over Dubai plan to take over U.S. ports
By WILL LESTER

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to comments from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. He said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national-security concerns."

But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics, saying that information is classified.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national-security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation was bought last week by DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals, has sued in a Florida court challenging the deal. It maintains in the suit, disclosed Saturday, that it would become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.

"We are aware of the lawsuit but cannot comment until our legal teams have a chance to review it," Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said Sunday in the company's initial response to the lawsuit.

He noted that his company "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."

"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. ... " Seymour said.

Lawmakers from both parties question the sale as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, [to] take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Critics have cited the Emirates' history as an operational and financial base for the 9/11 hijackers.

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned this month.

----------
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11446954/
The White House is embarking on a vigorous defence of its decision to approve Dubai Ports World's £3.9bn (€5.7bn) takeover of P&O, the UK ports operator, in the face of mounting congressional opposition to the deal.

The administration will emphasise two points in response to claims by Washington lawmakers and local officials – both Republican and Democratic – that the deal, which will give Dubai-owned DP World five terminals along the east coast of the US, compromises national security.

A Treasury official said the White House would call on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assure critics on Capitol Hill that the deal was thoroughly investigated by the interagency committee that vets foreign takeovers of US assets on national security grounds and that DP World had a long standing relationship with DHS.

"You can be assured that before a deal is approved we put safeguards in place, assurances in place, that make everybody comfortable that we are where we need to be from a national security viewpoint," Michael Chertoff, DHS secretary, said yesterday.

The Bush administration will also call on State and Defence department officials to persuade legislators that the US has a "long-standing" and "good" relationship with the United Arab Emirates.

Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, who will be meeting Gulf foreign ministers this week in Abu Dhabi, said on Friday that Abu Dhabi was "a very good friend" to the US and that the deal needed "better explanation".

It is unclear, however, whether the White House will be able to assuage an angry group of lawmakers who have expressed incredulity at the Bush administration's decision.

Republican senator Lindsey Graham joined the fray on Sunday when he said in an interview on Fox that it was a mistake for the White House to have approved the deal.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our histroy, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel," said Mr Graham.

He joins the ranks of Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who has raised questions about the thoroughness of the White House's review of the deal and is calling a hearing to discuss the issue, and Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is also expected to voice concern on the issue.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California on Sunday said she would support a proposal by fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton to pass legislation to block the transaction.

The backlash has already prompted comparison to last summer's debate over the attempt by a Chinese oil company, CNOOC, to take over California-based Unocal. Although there are differences between the cases, experts say both deals raise questions about who will ultimately control the future of foreign investment in the US: the White House or Congress.

One Washington attorney said: "This is like building a fire, you have the kindling, you have the wood and you have the matches.

"But how big will the fire get? That depends on whether the administration continues to support the deal, and whether (more) high-level Republicans sign on (to oppose) it."

The Chinese are buying the panama canal????
They already did. :D

Silly American, thinking you're safe, while the Chinese buy the world from up under your arse, piece by piece. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison
http://www.hutchison-whampoa.com/eng/ports/international/the_americas.htm#3

This company (and as you know, all companies in China work for the collective good on some level) bought two large areas on either end of the Canal. So essentially, this Chinese company controls who goes in and who comes out.

What if it were an American corporation?

American corporations are no better.

American corporations are no better.

Then who would you prefer own the ports?

Then who would you prefer own the ports?

The government.

Privatizing security has the same problem privatizing the military does. Sometimes, boring, inefficient, wasteful redundancy is useful.

The government.

Privatizing security has the same problem privatizing the military does. Sometimes, boring, inefficient, wasteful redundancy is useful.

The government is still in charge of security at these ports. Specifically, the Coast Guard. However, ownership of the ports, which means maintenance and expansion of infrastructure among other things, is now in the hands of Dubai Ports World.

The government is still in charge of security at these ports. Specifically, the Coast Guard. However, ownership of the ports, which means maintenance and expansion of infrastructure among other things, is now in the hands of Dubai Ports World.

Then this is just typical "Arabs are bloody murderous terrorists" paranoia. Never mind.

They already did. :D

Silly American, thinking you're safe, while the Chinese buy the world from up under your arse, piece by piece. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison
http://www.hutchison-whampoa.com/eng/ports/international/the_americas.htm#3

This company (and as you know, all companies in China work for the collective good on some level) bought two large areas on either end of the Canal. So essentially, this Chinese company controls who goes in and who comes out.

I dont understand how someone can think the Chinese dont have a hidden agenda, even more so after reading articles like these. :confused:

I dont understand how someone can think the Chinese dont have a hidden agenda, even more so after reading articles like these. :confused:
Of course they do. It's to restore the position of China as the central country of the world, capable of using the world economy to get whatever it might need.

Don't confuse that though with world domination, because they don't actually want to conquer anyone. They couldn't care less what you do with your life, as long as China is secure and prosperous.

For those who haven't read this article yet...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398844,00.html

Of course they do. It's to restore the position of China as the central country of the world, capable of using the world economy to get whatever it might need.

Don't confuse that though with world domination, because they don't actually want to conquer anyone. They couldn't care less what you do with your life, as long as China is secure and prosperous.

For those who haven't read this article yet...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398844,00.html

Yes, well...I just hope that there isnt an inevitable show down between America and China over something stupid like Taiwan.

Also, I had already read that article last time you posted it and I just wanted to let you know that I always read the articles you post from spiegel...they are always very stimulating, regardless of if it falls under what I beleive to be biased or not.

Of course they do. It's to restore the position of China as the central country of the world, capable of using the world economy to get whatever it might need.

Don't confuse that though with world domination, because they don't actually want to conquer anyone. They couldn't care less what you do with your life, as long as China is secure and prosperous.

What's good for China is good for the world? Well, a prosperous China would mean more jobs, trade, and economic growth over here in the US once they reach relative parity in terms of costs. I have no problems or fears in regard to China, and I think they will be a great asset to the world economy.

Chinese economic growth is great as long as they address the problems they face with their growth rather than simply pursue it as a means in itself. I think they may need to slow their growth to prevent it from collapsing in on itself, and I think they recognize that need.

I think it's just the thing that America needs to show the world that we don't hate everyone in the Middle East and we aren't a bunch of racists.

I think it's just the thing that America needs to show the world that we don't hate everyone in the Middle East and we aren't a bunch of racists.
No it doesn't; it just solidifies the US government as run by fuckwits.

We invade and occupy Iraq on the pre-tense they had weapons of mass destruction and then, supporting terrorism, which has been subsequently used to support the invasion due to the lack of evil weapons. Then, we grant numerous Arabian countries, with proven ties to international terrorist organizations, control of ports on US land. This is all the while we have concerns about already loose port security.

To anyone that isn't part of the unshakable Republican base, this should be the straw that broke the camel's back.

You want to prove that the US arn't racists and hate the Middle East? Stop fucking threatening and invading shit.

Then, we grant numerous Arabian countries, with proven ties to international terrorist organizations, control of ports on US land. This is all the while we have concerns about already loose port security.
Ever been to Dubai?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

Then, we grant numerous Arabian countries, with proven ties to international terrorist organizations, control of ports on US land.

We didn't grant them anything. Dubai Ports World acquired, legally, the company previously administering the ports.

We didn't grant them anything. Dubai Ports World acquired, legally, the company previously administering the ports.
The government has to sign off on their acquisition of our ports.

Then this is just typical "Arabs are bloody murderous terrorists" paranoia. Never mind.

Well, yes. But did you expect it to be any otherwise.

Please note however, that two of the loudest voices in this whole affair are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton; once again proving that you don't have to be a republican, to be a racist.

(Personally, I don't think that infrastructure like ports should be managed by private companies in any case, but that's a whole different discussion.)

If I were an American I would be completely against the decision. Personally I don't think it's a particularly good idea for a country to sell of it's essential infastructre into the hands of private enterprise. But if they were to sell it off to an American business or ones in stable countries such as the EU member states or Japan then it wouldn't be a disaster. But the idea of selling it off to a muslim country with terrorist links is utter madness.

If I were an American I would be completely against the decision. Personally I don't think it's a particularly good idea for a country to sell of it's essential infastructre into the hands of private enterprise. But if they were to sell it off to an American business or ones in stable countries such as the EU member states or Japan then it wouldn't be a disaster. But the idea of selling it off to a muslim country with terrorist links is utter madness.

The only thing the government won't sell is the millitary, and that's only because it's partially privatized anyway.

Yes, well...I just hope that there isnt an inevitable show down between America and China over something stupid like Taiwan.
Definitely wouldn't be good for the global economy at this point. So I hope nothing like that happens. Iran is causing enough frustration as it is.

Personally, I don't think that infrastructure like ports should be managed by private companies in any case, but that's a whole different discussion.
No, it isn't. That is the very damn discussion.

No, it isn't. That is the very damn discussion.

I'll help you.


Personally, I don't think that infrastructure like ports should be managed by private companies in any case, but that's a whole different discussion.

You'll find it much easier in the future if you learn to discern when people are speaking in generalities, and when they are speaking to specifics.

Please note however, that two of the loudest voices in this whole affair are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton; once again proving that you don't have to be a republican, to be a racist.

Wrong. Go back and read THE WHOLE THREAD.
Come back when you're educated and spare the rightwing bullsh*t.

Wrong. Go back and read THE WHOLE THREAD.
Come back when you're educated and spare the rightwing bullsh*t.

I am not rightwing.

And I am a new york resident, so I have a better idea what the 'twins' are up to than you do.

They've been on the local news more often than any other politician about this.

You might want to try some of that edukashun yourself.

Edit: From Schumer's own website.


“Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen,” Schumer said.

Link (http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2006/PR66.UAE.021606.html)

I presume he feels this way because they are arabs. It never bothered him when an UK company ran them.

I am not rightwing.

And I am a new york resident, so I have a better idea what the 'twins' are up to than you do.

They've been on the local news more often than any other politician about this.

You might want to try some of that edukashun yourself.

Edit: From Schumer's own website.



Link (http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2006/PR66.UAE.021606.html)

I presume he feels this way because they are arabs. It never bothered him when an UK company ran them.
FROM THIS THREAD INPARTICULAR:
Republican senator Lindsey Graham joined the fray on Sunday when he said in an interview on Fox that it was a mistake for the White House to have approved the deal.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our histroy, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel," said Mr Graham.

He joins the ranks of Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who has raised questions about the thoroughness of the White House's review of the deal and is calling a hearing to discuss the issue, and Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is also expected to voice concern on the issue.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10462694&postcount=24
----
So what did you just prove?
If anything, you're reinforcing your attitude expressed voluminously in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409460&postcount=172


--------
Edukashun? Sounds about right.

[
So what did you just prove?
If anything, you're reinforcing your attitude expressed voluminously in this thread:


It proves that I've read more about it than you have. Obviously, the seattle times is the 'go-to' on this though.

Just read schumer's website. You'll see that both republicans and democrats have signed onto this BS. And in for anyone who lives in the NY area it is obvious that the 'twins' are leading the charge.

So the point still stands. Unless of course you are claiming that Schumer and Clinton never said those things?

It proves that I've read more about it than you have. Obviously, the seattle times is the 'go-to' on this though. You haven't substantiated that at all, in fact, all you've done is attack the left.

Just read schumer's website.Just read the thread.
And in for anyone who lives in the NY area it is obvious that the 'twins' are leading the charge.No, it's only that way to rightwingers and people too weak to admit they wish they were outspoken rightwingers.

So the point still stands.
The point doesn't stand, and here's why:
that two of the loudest voices in this whole affair are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton
You just disproved yourself, i basically was a spectator.
You have the rigmarole of rightwinger with the same lack of personal critical reasoning .... obviously, it'd be time wasting to think you were above that.

Hmm...you do have a point and I have heard that the Emirates are pretty moderate too.

It just makes me nervous, thats all.

You have nothing to worry about; first of all, UAE is more than just one big country, it is a number of small states that make it up - considering that they're ecnouraging westerners to move to Dubai for sun, surf and tax free living, if they had an anti-western agenda, I doubt they would be so happy to allow immigration.

Regarding Dubai - they have the least amount of oil in the middle east, going by the current rate of extraction they'll run out in around 15-20 years; they need investments like this to not only work, but to grow and support the lifestyle they've become accustomed to - and like another poster said, if the US administration says jump, they'll respond, "how high? and would you like me to spin and do something fancy in the air?".

It proves that I've read more about it than you have. Obviously, the seattle times is the 'go-to' on this though.

Just read schumer's website. You'll see that both republicans and democrats have signed onto this BS. And in for anyone who lives in the NY area it is obvious that the 'twins' are leading the charge.

So the point still stands. Unless of course you are claiming that Schumer and Clinton never said those things?

You mean that in New York you hear more from New York Senators (on a topic that concerns New York directly,) than you hear from other Senators? That's so weird. It must be because this is a purely partisan issue...

sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

It proves that I've read more about it than you have.

The only thing you've proven is that you are from the New York area.