Bush adminstration gives U.A.E a large amount of control over 6 US ports

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thanks for outsourcing our national security to an Islamic country with a 6,6 rating from freedom house, the same as Iran, you terrorist supporter, George W. Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port_security

Of course the Republican apoligists will argue that this is not relevant, and that Bush is really making us really secure in their own fantasy world. Wake the hell up, you partisan clowns.

[MODU]

First, let's be clear.  The UAE has bought P&O shipping (I sailed on one of their ships which was leased by Sea-Land shipping at one point), which is a British firm that has the operational contracts for their own ports in the US.  They are not the only foreign-controlled port operations within the US.  Additionally, these control leases are not for the entire port facility, but for specific portions, normally on privately owned or leased docks.  Ships entering the port still require Coast Guard approval, and foreign cargo still has to be searched before leaving the facility.

The only reason why this is getting attention is because the purchaser is from the UAE, and has nothing to do with foreign investment or operation within the US.  It's specifically racial profiling.  Now, there might be good reason to re-examine the operational contracts because of this (which the US does have the right to do), but don't start flaming without understanding the business.

[MODU]

The ignorance of politicians continues:

"Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.

Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement.

P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.

(cont...)

Maybe next time he should do his homework before speaking. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

"Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe next time he should do his homework before speaking. 

Actually it looks like he did.  There is a real difference between a state-owned foreign company and a private or publicly held foreign company.  (Public in the sense of publiclly available stick that is.)  A state-owned company is far likelier to base its operating decisions on factors other than how to run the port at maximum economic effiiciency than one in which invested money is at risk instead of politically supplied money.  It's a legitimate concern.  Granted, it's likely being used here as a cover for Arab bashing, but the issue itself is real.

[??????????]

Bump.

Definately a bad idea.

[Smash255]

Bump.

Definately a bad idea.

Holy Crap.  States and I agree on an issue

[phk]

Drop the xenophobia.

[Beet]

This is the third time anti-foreign sentiment (for whatever reason) has prevented a major deal in the west.

1- CNOOC's bid for Unocal
2- Mittal's bid for Arcelor (France)
3- DPW's bid in this instance

[phk]

This is the third time anti-foreign sentiment (for whatever reason) has prevented a major deal in the west.

1- CNOOC's bid for Unocal
2- Mittal's bid for Arcelor (France)
3- DPW's bid in this instance

People are hostile to Asian and Middle Eastern prosperity.

Anyone against this deal is racist.

[Beet]

This is the third time anti-foreign sentiment (for whatever reason) has prevented a major deal in the west.

1- CNOOC's bid for Unocal
2- Mittal's bid for Arcelor (France)
3- DPW's bid in this instance

People are hostile to Asian and Middle Eastern prosperity.

I don't think that's the case. The latter two deals could still go through. And in the DPW instance, there is a serious security concern at hand, which has not been given serious enough consideration.

[phk]

This is the third time anti-foreign sentiment (for whatever reason) has prevented a major deal in the west.

1- CNOOC's bid for Unocal
2- Mittal's bid for Arcelor (France)
3- DPW's bid in this instance

People are hostile to Asian and Middle Eastern prosperity.

I don't think that's the case. The latter two deals could still go through. And in the DPW instance, there is a serious security concern at hand, which has not been given serious enough consideration.

This is simply the result of pure, plain xenophobia.

This national security bullsh**t is an excuse people use simply because the company is based out of an Arab country.  A modern, progressive one at that.

If were going to do block Dubai Ports, we might as well go the route of feudal Japan and make it illegal for peopel to leave the country and for people to come into hte country.

[David S]

Well if nothing else this sheds some light on what foreign countries are doing with the US dollars they're accumulating. They aren't buying American, they are buying America.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This national security bullsh**t is an excuse people use simply because the company is based out of an Arab country.  A modern, progressive one at that.

I have to disagree with the "modern, progressive" label. As jfern pointed out, there's a 6,6 Freedom House rating. The country is basically a collection of absolute monarchies.

Plus as you can see, it's one of the countries that still has the death penalty for homosexuality: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG

[Bdub]

This is a terrible idea.  What is Bush thinking.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Senate Democrats have sponsored a bill that would block this and prevent any foreign company from handling security at US ports and airports.

So which party is stronger on national security again?

[MODU]

Senate Democrats have sponsored a bill that would block this and prevent any foreign company from handling security at US ports and airports.

So which party is stronger on national security again?

P&O, and the UAE company, does not handle port security as it is.  Just port management for the peirs under their control.  Port security still falls under Homeland Security.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Are these ports already in private hands? If so, what's the problem?

[Sam Spade]

Are these ports already in private hands? If so, what's the problem?

For the last 5 years, they have been run by a British company.  The British company has been bought out, I think, which is what is necessitating the change.  There haven't been any problems during their handling of these matters. 

Also as I recall, in the last bidding deal, there were no American companies who made bids to handle the ports.  And MODU is quite correct on the division between port handling and port security.

FWIW, I am against this deal, and I believe that very little would happen to endanger America.  It's just the "safe, rather than sorry" option I often take. 

[Sam Spade]

Are these ports already in private hands? If so, what's the problem?

For the last 5 years, they have been run by a British company.  The British company has been bought out, I think, which is what is necessitating the change.  There haven't been any problems during their handling of these matters. 

Also as I recall, in the last bidding deal, there were no American companies who made bids to handle the ports.  And MODU is quite correct on the division between port handling and port security.

FWIW, I am against this deal, and I believe that very little would happen to endanger America.  It's just the "safe, rather than sorry" option I often take. 

I should have really mentioned here that the UAE company bought out the English company that was doing the ports before. 

Hence, the reason for the change, as far as I can figure.

[MODU]

Bushy just came out in a forceful statement stating he will veto any legislation against this deal based solely on xenophobia.  Good for him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bushy just came out in a forceful statement stating he will veto any legislation against this deal based solely on xenophobia.  Good for him.

What's xenophobic about not wanting a country with a 6,6 Freedom House rating in charge of our port security? Bush has no credibility on the issue, anyways, having attacked a random country because they were Islamic (that way he could try to spin that it was part of the war on terror).

[MODU]

Bushy just came out in a forceful statement stating he will veto any legislation against this deal based solely on xenophobia.  Good for him.

What's xenophobic about not wanting a country with a 6,6 Freedom House rating in charge of our port security? Bush has no credibility on the issue, anyways, having attacked a random country because they were Islamic (that way he could try to spin that it was part of the war on terror).

*slaps you upside the head*  P&O was not in charge of port security, you moron.  They had management contracts.  Try again.

[nlm]

Ah, the Democrats have made a political and security issue out of nothing it would appear. I guess they are just following the excellent example provided by their Republican friends.

[nlm]

WASHINGTON - Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
 
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

"I'm not against foreign ownership," said Frist, "but my main concern is national security." He was speaking to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where Frist was doing a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues.

More at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

I guess Billy needs to see if any political damage can be done to the GOP and any future plans of his own or not by this little Dem "security" issue before he can make a stand. Hahaha - politics before country, when is that story going to start getting old for the partisans of this nation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's some more information on this. It was explicitly approved by the Bush adminstration, and he is threatening to veto any attempt to change it. Nice, no vetoes in 5 years of America going down the tubes, and now he's threatening to use his first veto to force control of our ports to a middle east country with a 6,6 Freedom House rating?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/21/155744/260