NationStates Jolt Archive

Its important to remember that the US isn't selling its ports to DP World, DP world is buying the British company that already runs them.

If the deal is scuttled by the US, it will be a clear message that "we refuse to do business with you because you are Arab Muslims, we prefer to do business with Europeans."

Dubai is probably less religious-extremist than Alabama and less anti-American than Oregon and Montana militias.

This was random.

This was random.


There is a lot of whining in the US about this port business on the part of people who dont know much.

There is a lot of whining in the US about this port business on the part of people who dont know much.
well we certainly don't need a seventh thread about it.

well we certainly don't need a seventh thread about it.


I dont really, you know, read past page one.

well we certainly don't need a seventh thread about it.

How dare you question the relevance of this regional tempest in a teapot to an international audience?

Yeaah I never got the objection to this.

If they can show that UAE has been complicit in aiding terrorist activities then yeah I could see concern, but so far it's just because they are Arabs it seems. Plus security would still be handled by Americans and people who passed security checks.

The Commission that decided to go ahead with the sale or lease or whatever it is, did an investigation and decided there was no threat.

Whats the problem then? Isn't this a free market, sell the the highest bidder, you got the demand I got the supply country?

I wonder how much of America is owned/controlled by foreign investment anyway.

There is a lot of whining in the US about this port business on the part of people who dont know much.

Absolutely.

The fourth largest shipping company in the world is going to sacrifice billions in investment and permanently destroy their international reputation to cause a mild inconvienence in American shipping through a terror attack? Come on, I thought Americans were smarter than that...but I guess we only value competition when it involves anyone buy the inscrutable Muslims.

The best thing is, they're going to pump another $2+ billion in upgrades in to the facilities...I don't think they plan on allowing terrorists to cause trouble any time soon. This deal will improve the quality of our ports as well as build ties between the US and a leader in the remaking of the Middle East in to a progressive region...it's clear that we stand to benefit from this.

It's no surprise, however, given that the Congress whined like babies to stop the CNOOC-Unocal deal and ended up giving it to Conoco-Phillips' vastly inferior offer and probably prolonged China's dependence on imported oil as well as made them move closer to Iran to meet their energy needs. Once again, Congress is looking out for America.:rolleyes:

P&O Nedlloyd is selling 29 ports to DP World. As far as I can see, only 6 are in America, and only America is whining about the ports going to Arabs.

Considering world shipping is owned by the UK, Netherlands, Hong Kong and Singapore (and Dubai is rising fast), the American objections are not on this occasion being made from a position of strength, rather, they are being viewed with ridicule, embarrassment and contempt by the real players in the industry.

This is one section of the global economy where American influence counts for nothing, and those objecting are merely showing their racial prejudice and ignorance of how the world is run.

This is one section of the global economy where American influence counts for nothing, and those objecting are merely showing their racial prejudice and ignorance of how the world is run.

The US no longer has the influence it once had. Our people will now start to compete solely on our own merits and competitive initiative, and that is beyond a doubt one of the greatest things to happen to the world economy in a long time.

There is nothing more dangerous to world economic stability than a nation using its influence to interfere with the economy in the name of hegemony, and the faster it dies the better off we'll be. Maybe Americans will become more involved in the world once they can no longer hide behind the government...

Its important to remember that the US isn't selling its ports to DP World, DP world is buying the British company that already runs them.

If the deal is scuttled by the US, it will be a clear message that "we refuse to do business with you because you are Arab Muslims, we prefer to do business with Europeans."

Dubai is probably less religious-extremist than Alabama and less anti-American than Oregon and Montana militias.
I trust the British a lot more than I trust a country who had a highjacker in 9/11. Just my opinion.

I trust the British a lot more than I trust a country who had a highjacker in 9/11. Just my opinion.

There have been terrorists from Britian as well. NOt to mention murderers and rapist and theifs.

Have you seen the anti-American sentiment in Britian?

How dare you question the relevance of this regional tempest in a teapot to an international audience?

That's especially hilarious considering three nations are involved in this.

Yeaah I never got the objection to this.

If they can show that UAE has been complicit in aiding terrorist activities then yeah I could see concern, but so far it's just because they are Arabs it seems.
Two of the hijackers were from there and much of the money that financed them went through their government owned banks. There population is rabidly anti-American. While they may not be running the security checks, they will know exactly what is coming and what is going and when for every ship in nd out of six of the US's biggest harbors and they'll have a good idea of what will and what will not be checked and may even be able to influence that. They will, as a matter of course, be able privy to security logs, plans and logistics because they will have to work very closely with our coast guard.

We have no problem with the UK watching our ports because we have no problem with the UK watching our asses. Our two countries are about as close as you can get. We share military technology and cooperate very closely with each other's intelligence communities. The company that is being sold in the UK is a private enterprise that is being sold to a government owned enterprise that woudl NEVER reciprocate and allow an American company to operate their ports.

The biggest problem, of course, is taht the Bush administration once again did this all in secret without informing congress. They just showed up one day and said, "oh, by the way, we just spproved a deal to turn over six of our countries largest ports to a government that figured largely in the worst terrorist attack on our country ever."

Bush had the audacity to say to congress, "I understand that they are concerned, but they need to know that their government has look at it." Their governmment? THEY are the government. Congress is a check and balance against the executive branch. They are supposed to be consulted in deals like this. Bush and his administration are just one branch. Congress and the courts are supposed to have checks and balances against his administration. Bush is not congresses government. If anything its the other way around.

One interesting thing. They do recognise the Taliban.....

I trust the British a lot more than I trust a country who had a highjacker in 9/11. Just my opinion.


The hijackers werent from Dubai, they were from another emirate.

Perhaps you shouldnt trust black people. After all, some black people killed somebody once. This is the same reasoning.

Considering world shipping is owned by the UK, Netherlands, Hong Kong and Singapore (and Dubai is rising fast), the American objections are not on this occasion being made from a position of strength, rather, they are being viewed with ridicule, embarrassment and contempt by the real players in the industry.

Actually, I think Denmark has a considerable stake in world shipping as well, with Maersk.

Perhaps you shouldnt trust black people. After all, some black people killed somebody once. This is the same reasoning.

Isn't that the same logic of the patriot act and warrentless spy taps?

maybe it is sensible to let DP world buy the ports, but in the end it will be a political decision and it is only of secondary importance what objectively the right course of action is. if we only followed the objectively sensible path, we would not need elections, we could simply have a panel of studied experts, that look at all the facts and then make the right decision based on hard facts.

The hijackers werent from Dubai, they were from another emirate.

Perhaps you shouldnt trust black people. After all, some black people killed somebody once. This is the same reasoning.
I don't trust people who kill people over cartoons. I am not a rightwing. It's just that I think Bush is being an idiot. I want an American company guarding my ports (I live in one of the cities that he's trying to let the Emirates in). I barely like having the British in the ports. I want Americans. Is it too much to ask to know that my countrymen are guarding my city? Is it too much to ask for foreigners from an area known for terroristic acts to not be the ones who my life can depend on? I don't want to take risks on weapons getting into my city.

Two of the hijackers were from there and much of the money that financed them went through their government owned banks. There population is rabidly anti-American. While they may not be running the security checks, they will know exactly what is coming and what is going and when for every ship in nd out of six of the US's biggest harbors and they'll have a good idea of what will and what will not be checked and may even be able to influence that. They will, as a matter of course, be able privy to security logs, plans and logistics because they will have to work very closely with our coast guard.

Dubai Ports World is the third largest shipping company in the world. They have no vested interest whatsoever in providing that information to terrorism, especially given their state-owned origins; the UAE needs foreign investment to keep its economy going, and so they have no reason to do or support anything that would threaten that inflow. The notion that they would sell off that data to terrorists is ridiculous.

Furthermore, there are huge amounts of vital infrastructure owned by Aramco, the state-owned Saudi Arabian oil corporation and they have never had any ties to terror nor have they ever supplied any information that could be used against their network. If the Saudi government can operate vital strategic and economic assets without using them for terrorism, then the UAE (who are many times more Western than Saudi Arabia) can do the same with assets that are miniscule compared to those of Aramco.

I don't trust people who kill people over cartoons. I am not a rightwing. It's just that I think Bush is being an idiot. I want an American company guarding my ports (I live in one of the cities that he's trying to let the Emirates in). I barely like having the British in the ports. I want Americans. Is it too much to ask to know that my countrymen are guarding my city? Is it too much to ask for foreigners from an area known for terroristic acts to not be the ones who my life can depend on? I don't want to take risks on weapons getting into my city.

Americans will be guarding the ports, and will be operating them. The UAE's DP World, or any shipping company for that matter never employs people outside of the region in which their facility is operating save at the highest levels of management

Furthermore, don't confuse American ownership with loyalty to America. The actions of American oil companies around the world or the Internet companies censoring and turning over dissidents to gulags in China are more than enough proof that American ownership doesn't guarantee commitment to American values. Also, the terrible security at many vulnerable sites was due to the lack of effort by American companies to improve their security during the 90's and even after 9/11. Nationality has nothing to do with it.

Simply put, if the deal is the best there is no justifiable reason to stop it.

Dubai Ports World is the third largest shipping company in the world. They have no vested interest whatsoever in providing that information to terrorism, especially given their state-owned origins; the UAE needs foreign investment to keep its economy going, and so they have no reason to do or support anything that would threaten that inflow. The notion that they would sell off that data to terrorists is ridiculous.Its not necessary for them to sell them. Its necessary for one person in a position of importance to decide its time to die for jihad and sell them or give them to some jihadist.

Furthermore, there are huge amounts of vital infrastructure owned by Aramco, the state-owned Saudi Arabian oil corporation and they have never had any ties to terror nor have they ever supplied any information that could be used against their network. If the Saudi government can operate vital strategic and economic assets without using them for terrorism, then the UAE (who are many times more Western than Saudi Arabia) can do the same with assets that are miniscule compared to those of Aramco.
Owning some refineries does not create anywhere near as big a hole in our national security as running our harbors. People import things into the US through our harbors, not our oil refineries.

Having said all that, I'm not even necessarily against it. There's a real argument to be made that greater economic cooperation may lead to a warming of relations between the Islamic world and the West. What I am against is the way the Administration handled this deal. They just did the deal and told our representatives afterwards. That's typical of this administration and I'm really sick of it.

Its not necessary for them to sell them. Its necessary for one person in a position of importance to decide its time to die for jihad and sell them or give them to some jihadist.[QUOTE]

What's to stop that from happening if an American company owns them? Security at ports, including those run by American companies has been absolutely terrible (at least according to the 9/11 commission) which means that pretty much anyone who wants to find out sensitive information and attack them would be able to do so.

[QUOTE]Owning some refineries does not create anywhere near as big a hole in our national security as running our harbors. People import things into the US through our harbors, not our oil refineries.

Not just refinieries; they also own pipelines, LNG plants, and the crude oil wellheads themselves. If they wanted to they could plunge the economy in to recession as well as kill people to boot...the scale of Aramco's investment in the US is incredibly high.

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]Its not necessary for them to sell them. Its necessary for one person in a position of importance to decide its time to die for jihad and sell them or give them to some jihadist.[QUOTE]

What's to stop that from happening if an American company owns them? Security at ports, including those run by American companies has been absolutely terrible (at least according to the 9/11 commission) which means that pretty much anyone who wants to find out sensitive information and attack them would be able to do so.



Not just refinieries; they also own pipelines, LNG plants, and the crude oil wellheads themselves. If they wanted to they could plunge the economy in to recession as well as kill people to boot...the scale of Aramco's investment in the US is incredibly high.
Like I said, I'm not necessarily against this. I just don't like the way this administration handles these things. Or anything, for that matter. From how it handles shooting hunting partners in the face to how it handles matters of national security. The point is that this investment IS a matter of national security and I would feel much more comfortable if it was handled openly and with the participation of congress than by this administration in secret. Bush and his administration is, after all, incredibly incompetent.

Its important to remember that the US isn't selling its ports to DP World, DP world is buying the British company that already runs them.

If the deal is scuttled by the US, it will be a clear message that "we refuse to do business with you because you are Arab Muslims, we prefer to do business with Europeans."

So? They already hateus and I see no need to give them a chance to hit us no matter how small. And we like England, despite their use of the word 'Lori', instead of truck.

I just don't know, the only arguments i've heard against stopping the takeover is that everyone who advocates it is apparently a racist, and the arguments for not letting the Arab company take control include somewhat reasonable things such as:
Arab companies could be easier to influence probably by terrorists

The ports are not only American but right inside of America (I think), so by all rights, America should literally control them

It could be quicker to respond in a crisis if the government has oversight of them directly

etc. etc. etc.

Most of these arguments, I think, probably could be discounted through serious debate, im pretty sure the third one entirely depends on the relation between the government and ports compared with the speed of an independent company to respond, the second one might be discounted through costs, and the first one...well...im not so sure. But as long as the main argument that I see continues to be "If we don't let the Arab's play with our boats, then we're all racists!" I am not impressed, seriously. If there is a real argument against not giving them control, then it should be presented as the main view. As long as it seems to continue to be (As Fox news seems to put it) that if we don't hand them over we are all racist meanies, then I don't see any real justification behind arguments about giving them control over our ports. Ad homonims generally indicate that one side is clearly winning the debate, and i'd think calling people racists would definently qualify as ad hominims.

THAT's the biggest difference I see. That and the Bush administration was caught once again being clueless and not following procedure.

Arab companies could be easier to influence probably by terrorists

You don't know that, and you don't know if another company would do any better.

The ports are not only American but right inside of America (I think), so by all rights, America should literally control them

Then get rid of the British companies. That's not what's being proposed.

It could be quicker to respond in a crisis if the government has oversight of them directly

Then nationalize them. I'd support that, but that's not what's being proposed, either.

THAT's the biggest difference I see. That and the Bush administration was caught once again being clueless and not following procedure.

Yeah, the administration was pretty clueless about it. I'd rather Bush came out right away and approved the deal; instead, he allowed Congress to whine about it first and made himself look oblivious to the situation.

But as long as the main argument that I see continues to be "If we don't let the Arab's play with our boats, then we're all racists!" I am not impressed, seriously. If there is a real argument against not giving them control, then it should be presented as the main view.

How about "they paid for them"? Is that a good argument? How about "we have no choice other than to seize private assets"? Does that work? How about "DP World owns dozens of ports across the world, and not a one of them has ever blown up?" Or "DP World is investing $2 billion into the infrastructure of these ports"? Or "the US Coast Guard and Customs are still in charge of security", or "Americans will still be the ones running the day-to-day operations of the ports"? Or have you just not been actually paying attention to the arguments against stopping this purchase?

Dubai is probably less religious-extremist than Alabama

Does Alabama execute homosexuals too?

(Heh, sorry)

I didnt read everyones post but I did want to look on the board and see what the general opinion was about all this xenophobic bitching going about some arabs buying ports(of which they will have no control of security anyway, that is the job of coast guard and customs like every other fecking port)

I just know this, I am a blue collar american, family guy, conservative.

The ports were already in a foreign nations hands....an ally.
They are being sold to another foreign nation....an ally.

Security will not be their responsibility just like it wasnt the Brits.

So...who cares?

Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Belize, or fecking Macedonia, money talks and bullshit walks and that is the american way, they got the cash give them the keys.
They arent getting some kind of monopoly, they wont be able to strangle the nations shipping....and from my personal experiences I bet the big boys running that company have more faith in cold hard cash then 70 virgins(no offense to any muslims, all offense to any wealthy cake-eaters, yeah, I am jealous).

Theorb, DP World outbid PSA by a large amount of money. That's the best reason for giving control to DP World. Also, the deal has been in discussion for quite a while, I saw a special on it on CNN in mid-January.

The fact that people are suddenly objecting to it on racial grounds is just plain ignorant. You seem to think the best reason the deal should go ahead is to take a stand against racism - it was always about money and competence - until the racists reared their heads. The ad hominem attacks came from the racist camp first, and it is not an attack at all to call it what it is.

Its important to remember that the US isn't selling its ports to DP World, DP world is buying the British company that already runs them.

If the deal is scuttled by the US, it will be a clear message that "we refuse to do business with you because you are Arab Muslims, we prefer to do business with Europeans."

Dubai is probably less religious-extremist than Alabama and less anti-American than Oregon and Montana militias.


And it is also important to remember that the British Company was a publicaly owned business dedicated to the usual credo of making money wheras the UAE company is 100% government owned and, as such, fully capable of becoming an intrument of UAE foreign policy.

That is the difference between the two that the law recognizes as being significant enough to warrant more extensive required investigations prior to approval.

Is there a lot of knee-jerk reactionsim and grandstanding going on? Sure.

But what bunch of dumbasses in the administration couldn't have predicted that under the circumstances? If the Congress had been kept in the loop along the way, I would put big money on it that it would not have been a problem at all. But presenting it as a fait acompli and further stipulating that no review is possible as the investigation is too classified for Congressional review (before admitting that actually no formal investigation was done, the executive was in the dark, and that non-standard record compliance deals were struck), but get on your own high horse and announce that you'll veto anything if they try it anyway (despite not knowing the details yourself) - well, that is a smack upside the head with a 2-by-4.


The response, thus far, has been entirely predictable - especially as the Executive Information Missmanagement Team seems to be, once again, on their game. Putting out just enough totally contradictory crap to almost FORCE people to sit up and take notice.

How about "we have no choice other than to seize private assets"?

The really funny thing is that seizing private assets for use of the "greater good" by the government, was what the whole red scare was all about. Commies in disguise anyone?

;)