United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports
- Thread starter Jokerman
- Start date
This story is now page one in the media. Bush says he didn't know about the sale until he heard about it in the media (in other words, read it on this board in this thread). Uh-huh.
For a guy who didn't know he certainly swooped down on the issue like a mother hawk. I don't remember hearing anything about, "Hmmm, let me look into this." No, he was like, "There's nothing to worry about."
That being said, after looking into this subject extensively, I now reverse my first knee-jerk opinion on this issue and say, let the deal go through.
For a guy who didn't know he certainly swooped down on the issue like a mother hawk. I don't remember hearing anything about, "Hmmm, let me look into this." No, he was like, "There's nothing to worry about."
That being said, after looking into this subject extensively, I now reverse my first knee-jerk opinion on this issue and say, let the deal go through.
No, I don't care what he says. It's just that there's a strong business case to be made for allowing this company to keep doing what it was doing before changing hands, which is what happened here.
I find myself "defending" this, not because I'm sure this is right, but because those who pass judgment on it do not have complete information, yet are so sure of themselves.
The irony of Democrats, of all people, objecting to this, is overwhelming. It's politically easy to make noise about this, when it probably won't change anything. There are more important fish to fry in the security arena, and Congress doesn't want to bother. No matter what happens, they're the same lazy politicians.
There's a good case to be made for and against this deal. I don't know what the "truth" is.
In the long run I doubt we can protect our ports, or much of anything else. There's only one protection: the promise of retaliatory annihilation that forces those in power to control the delinquents.
I find myself "defending" this, not because I'm sure this is right, but because those who pass judgment on it do not have complete information, yet are so sure of themselves.
The irony of Democrats, of all people, objecting to this, is overwhelming. It's politically easy to make noise about this, when it probably won't change anything. There are more important fish to fry in the security arena, and Congress doesn't want to bother. No matter what happens, they're the same lazy politicians.
There's a good case to be made for and against this deal. I don't know what the "truth" is.
In the long run I doubt we can protect our ports, or much of anything else. There's only one protection: the promise of retaliatory annihilation that forces those in power to control the delinquents.
No more weirder than his inaction at the Mexican border.
Anyway, our ports have always been out of our hands. And that's because only three companies can run ports on the scale that is needed: One is based in Singapore, the other is China, and then the UAE one. China already runs a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland.
The fact is that around the world this is commonplace. Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility. If the U.S. government is going to exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race, isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the world.
Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany. Hell, DPW handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
People should understand that DP World would not own the ports, only the concessions (or contracts) to manage the ports. Security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel. People act like we’re now going to have guys in turbans with AK-47s on the ports.:laugh:
The same security (or lack thereof) will be in place, the same unions and workers will be doing their jobs as under the previous owners.
The biggest danger to our ports is that Congress has refused to fund the various security agencies at the necessary levels to adequately perform their functions. Until this happens, it doesn't really matter who is running various port terminals.
Killing this sort of deal will play right into the hands of our enemies in the global propaganda war (that we are losing badly, by the way).
And what would be the alternative to a foreign company running our ports? Probably Haliburton.
Anyway, our ports have always been out of our hands. And that's because only three companies can run ports on the scale that is needed: One is based in Singapore, the other is China, and then the UAE one. China already runs a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland.
The fact is that around the world this is commonplace. Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility. If the U.S. government is going to exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race, isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the world.
Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany. Hell, DPW handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
People should understand that DP World would not own the ports, only the concessions (or contracts) to manage the ports. Security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel. People act like we’re now going to have guys in turbans with AK-47s on the ports.:laugh:
The same security (or lack thereof) will be in place, the same unions and workers will be doing their jobs as under the previous owners.
The biggest danger to our ports is that Congress has refused to fund the various security agencies at the necessary levels to adequately perform their functions. Until this happens, it doesn't really matter who is running various port terminals.
Killing this sort of deal will play right into the hands of our enemies in the global propaganda war (that we are losing badly, by the way).
And what would be the alternative to a foreign company running our ports? Probably Haliburton.
Jokerman said:
No more weirder than his inaction at the Mexican border.
Anyway, our ports have always been out of our hands. And that's because only three companies can run ports on the scale that is needed: One is based in Singapore, the other is China, and then the UAE based one. China already runs a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland..
The fact is that around the world this is commonplace. Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility. If the U.S. government is going to exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race, isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the world.
Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany. Hell, DPW handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
People should understand that DP World would not own the ports, only the concessions (or contracts) to manage the ports. Security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel. People act like we’re now going to have guys in turbans with AK-47s on the ports.:laugh:
The same security (or lack thereof) will be in place, the same unions and workers will be doing their jobs as under the previous owners.
The biggest danger to our ports is that Congress has refused to fund the various security agencies at the necessary levels to adequately perform their functions. Until this happens, it doesn't really matter who is running various port terminals.
Killing this sort of deal will play right into the hands of our enemies in the global propaganda war (that we are losing badly, by the way).
And what would be the alternative to a foreign company running our ports? Probably Haliburton.
Anyway, our ports have always been out of our hands. And that's because only three companies can run ports on the scale that is needed: One is based in Singapore, the other is China, and then the UAE based one. China already runs a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland..
The fact is that around the world this is commonplace. Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility. If the U.S. government is going to exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race, isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the world.
Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany. Hell, DPW handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
People should understand that DP World would not own the ports, only the concessions (or contracts) to manage the ports. Security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel. People act like we’re now going to have guys in turbans with AK-47s on the ports.:laugh:
The same security (or lack thereof) will be in place, the same unions and workers will be doing their jobs as under the previous owners.
The biggest danger to our ports is that Congress has refused to fund the various security agencies at the necessary levels to adequately perform their functions. Until this happens, it doesn't really matter who is running various port terminals.
Killing this sort of deal will play right into the hands of our enemies in the global propaganda war (that we are losing badly, by the way).
And what would be the alternative to a foreign company running our ports? Probably Haliburton.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.