the PORTGATE thread, where do you stand?

[shecky]

As usual, gun owners spout off like a bunch of fascists. Why not let capitalism work?

Bush has been making a fool of himself for the last five years, but this is one of the few issues that actually has some reason behind it. Of course, you can count on Bush to screw it up somehow. In this case, by completely misreading the reaction to the deal. Surely, someone in the Administration must have known it wouldn't play well with either red state/redneck peons, and protectionist liberals.

 

[cgjunk2]

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.

Before you jump on the 'no foreign control of strategic assets' bandwagon, it might be a good idea to list what foreign strategic assets are controlled or owned by US companies.

I ask the following question because I do not know, I don't ask it to be a jerk. How many US assets of this magnitude of strategic importance are owned by actual foreign governments? I am not asking about private or public companies owned by people of different nationalities or based in different countries.

Off the top of my head, I think Venezuala's govnt owns much if not all of Citgo refineries, which operates heavily in the US. Depending on how much we rely on Citgo, this might be a big problem for us in the future.

I realize there might not be that much "business" difference between a government run business, and a traditional private or public company. But surely there is great symbolic importance, at the very least, in allowing foreign governments to control such assets. Symbolism is a way of communicating. What are we communicating to other governments that might not be as friendly as the UAE. You don't have to fight us, just buy us?

I am not sure what the answer is... Some say protectionism is bad, and I agree with that thought on many levels. But there must be exceptions to every rule, right? Maybe it just comes down to "gut checks". China's recent bid to buy lots of refining capacity in the US didn't pass the "gut check" if you know what I mean. I guess a lot comes down to trust. I don't know, it is hard for me to get my thoughts straight on this, this is frustrating to think about... principally because I may be thinking about putting limits on what we traditionally as American have taken much pride in, a free society. We know that protectionism, isolationalism, and excessive sense of nationalism, can be part of the same continuum. We don't want to head down the wrong end of that continuum, because add a little bit of fear in the populous, and the results are not pretty.

Maybe that is why getting too philosophical over this may not help. If our adminstration likes you, you get to play, if we don't like you, then go back home. I guess that is called "politics" Apparently this adminstration likes the UAE. Maybe with good reason, they seem to be a moderate people, definately different culturally, but they seem quite measured from what I understand. Unfortunately it just seems to hit a real raw nerve at this time for too many people. "Politically tone deaf" was one way I heard it described in the news. If the UAE at all cared about us as a business partner, they would understand themselves that the timing is all wrong for this stuff to work out politically (right or wrong, it is unfortunately the case).

 

[Cellar Dweller]

If no U.S. companies can make money running ports, how can a foreign-state run company make money running ports if they must adhere to U.S. law? If UAE is buying goodwill and burning cash, what's really in it for them?

"Trust me," the words of every used-car salesman and teenager who later is found drunk/stoned/pregnant. Isn't trust supposed to be earned, rather than assumed? Isn't the well dry after "Good-job Brownie" and Harriet Miers and no WMDs and Medicare "reform" and No Child Left Behind?

 

[Jeff White]

shecky,
Please explain to this red state peon how allowing foreign control of strategic assets is good for the security of the nation?

Allow capitolism to work and everything will be all right? You mean like letting Loral Space Systems to sell ballistic missile technology to China? The so called Americans who sit on the boards of many of these large corporations are no more concerned about the security of the United States of America then the Democratic National Committee or the mainstream media.

How many of their underlings have gone to prison over the years for violating export restrictions and selling or attempting to sell sensitive technology to our enemies? We have Loral Space Systems selling ballistic missile technology to the Chinese at the top, although that was done with collusion of the administration at the time, to Galls, a police supply company in Lexington KY exporting night vision and body armor to Iran at the bottom of the scale. The only flag they are loyal to is the profit side of the quarterly report.

I know that the stockholders of General Dynamics and United Defense Technolgy must have just bristled with rage that our archaic laws didn't allow them to sell their latest (often developed at taxpayer expense) to the Soviets and their client states.

What do you think your corporate earnings will look like once they nationalize you at gunpoint after you sell everything to our enemies.

Jeff

 

[Cellar Dweller]

but are 6 terminals, out of all the ports and terminals we have, really strategic?

So you'd have no problem with a company owned and run by the Mexican government taking over border control and INS in Arizona? After all it's only one state of fifty, is it really strategic?

How about a Syrian state-owned company taking over operations of nuclear power plants? The security will still be American, after all...

 

[dmallind]

Differences between current and potential "foreign owned" scenarios:

• British COMPANY vs. UAE Government owned entity
• UK did not recognize and support Taliban
• UK did not serve as "anything goes" banking haven for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden even AFTER 9/11

It's nothing to do with Muslim vs. non Muslim. I would be just fine with, say, a Turkish COMPANY getting control of terminal operations, but I would be less than fine with a state controlled entity of any country doing so.

Capitalism has nothing to do with a foreign power controlling ports. Even a UAE company would not be so bad, but the outfit in question is a company in name only and is a nationalized entity (you know the REAL meaning of socialist - as opposed to the THR definition of anyone who supports income taxes and Federal regulations of any kind)

 

[stevelyn]

Where I stand is that "Portgate" is off topic for THR. Guns? Civil liberties? Nope.

If this deal eventually leads to facilitating a terror attack you can bet your arse it'll be guns and civil liberties related, as every jackass lawmamaker will be introducing bills to take away your guns and someone will find the need to expand the unPATRIOT Act. :banghead:

 

[gunsmith]

this is a very interesting thread

I must say though I've been getting called a redneck a whole heck of alot lately, being as I was born in Manhatten (the "New York" in new york new york) ...I am slowly learning the things that would make any redneck proud...like fixing my own pick up truck and having a truck gun and duct tape on hand. I guess I'm as much a redneck as any New Yorker can be and consider it an honor to be called one ...........

one thing that was just made aware of is Bush never vetoed anything even the mccain feingold anti free speech thing and other liberal attacks...but he will veto a law that protects our ports??
why???

 

[Autolycus]

I am basically pro-Bush; I think he is on the money about alot of facets of the national security issue.

However... This deal absolutely has got to go. Lemmeseehere - let a company owned by the government of United Arab Emirates "manage" our six largest ports, ports being our largest vulnerability??

NO FREAKING WAY!!! As Dr. Phil says, "What the hell were you thinking?!?!?!"

What's next - let the government of Iran run the Department of Homeland Security??

Well we could let the Mexican Government run the Immigration Department...

 

[DRZinn]

He's a step ahead of you on that one...

 

[Autolycus]

shecky,
Please explain to this red state peon how allowing foreign control of strategic assets is good for the security of the nation?

Allow capitolism to work and everything will be all right? You mean like letting Loral Space Systems to sell ballistic missile technology to China? The so called Americans who sit on the boards of many of these large corporations are no more concerned about the security of the United States of America then the Democratic National Committee or the mainstream media.

How many of their underlings have gone to prison over the years for violating export restrictions and selling or attempting to sell sensitive technology to our enemies? We have Loral Space Systems selling ballistic missile technology to the Chinese at the top, although that was done with collusion of the administration at the time, to Galls, a police supply company in Lexington KY exporting night vision and body armor to Iran at the bottom of the scale. The only flag they are loyal to is the profit side of the quarterly report.

I know that the stockholders of General Dynamics and United Defense Technolgy must have just bristled with rage that our archaic laws didn't allow them to sell their latest (often developed at taxpayer expense) to the Soviets and their client states.

What do you think your corporate earnings will look like once they nationalize you at gunpoint after you sell everything to our enemies.

Jeff

Excellent Post.

Did Galls really sell NV and Body Armor to Iran?

 

[Autolycus]

My feeling is that our ports should be run by US companies. No foreign investors. I think that since this has the potential to backfire it should be scrutinized highly. If this company wanted to manufacture cars or run restaurants I would be ok. As the risk is not that great to National Security. I think if a country (whether its Iran or Belguim or whoever) is not smart enough to hold on to their own "strategic assets" then I am not gonna pity them when it backfires. I dont mind the globalization that much but this could be a big mistake.

Its things like this that are causing me to split from the Republican Party. I will not vote Democrat either. I will vote Libertarian from now on.

 

[longhorngunman]

Tecumseh, you may want the ports run by US companies, I would like it to. There ain't no US countries to run the ports, that's all there is to it. You got three choices take your pick. I bet if they would have selected China instead of the UAE everybody would still be upset by it. Gotta make the best with the cards your delt. And the UAE has been very cooperative with the WOT and yes this is probably one of the rewards that they've earned, simple politics that goes on every day.

 

[RealGun]

National security or the lack thereof could certainly have an impact on civil liberties. Yes?
Biker

I look at it this way...should gun owners in particular have an interest in the topic, one any different than someone with no interest in guns or any other reason for subscribing to THR? Bringing every new political newsbite to the board regardless means there are no boundaries, no sense of being "on topic". The other criteria is to ask whether THR would be the best place to find such discussions. Actually most of it can be found anywhere, and guns need never come into the discussion.

The other part of it is whether anyone has drawn any connection to civil liberties. Otherwise we just rationalize why it is okay to bring the topic to THR. We aren't talking about guns or anything of the sort. What we do is slip into a pile-on re the administration. I can get that anywhere on the internet. In the process, we also make this fertile ground for trolls who probably don't even have a gun or any interest in owning one.

 

[Spot77]

I work in Baltimore and I deal directly with P and O Ports as a vendor.

I can tell you that:

A: If a terrorist wanted to do harm to the port or use the port to transport something evil, it would be NO PROBLEM at all even without the sale to the UAE company. We frequently deliver truckloads of paint, solvents (MEK, Toluene, Naptha, R7k51, and oodles of other nasty things) to the Port without much more than a courtesy stop to see the driver's license. No inspection of the truck, nothing more than a glance at a driver's license. Much of what we ship there gets used there, and a lot of it gets shipped overseas.

B: The actual security of the Dundalk and Seagirt Marine Terminals is handled by Md Transportation Police and a local private security company. This will not change. The Coast Guard and Baltimore City and County Police Marine Units patrol the waters around the port.

C. P and O Ports, although recently bought by another larger company has been an escellent customer regarding business transactions. All paperwork is in order and payments are always made in 15 days or less. I REALLY hope this doesn't change

Draw your own conclusions from this info, but I personally don't see too much concern for alarm yet. I'm sure a lot of changes will need to be made, but would we be in an uproar if this were an Isreali company or Brazillian? No, it's an Arab company, and this Arab company happens to be in a very friendly, stable nation.

 

[Camp David]

This port issue deal only surfaced becuase the Democrats lost traction on the Cheney story... Consider: Most Americans are perfectly happy letting China manufacture our automobile brake pads; you think we should worry at all about UAE unloading tankers at our ports containing more brake pads?

It's a non-story... more Democrats making hay about nothing....

 

[1911 guy]

Friendly terms.

We've been on friendly terms with the UAE and the brits who now operate those ports, but I think it is a bad idea in general to have any other nation administrating our ports. Wonder who's in charge of all the other ports not affected by this deal?

 

[Spot77]

We also thought it was a bad idea to relenquish control of the Panama Canal.

Deep down I still think it was a mistake, but it hasn't been of any consequence yet. Just like gungrabbers claimed the streets would flow with blood.......

 

[MechAg94]

I think this is much noise about nothing. It seems like the reactions are 1) we don't want any foreigners controlling the ports, and 2) we can't trust any muslims to do anything sensitive.

If it is #1 - Why are you getting upset now? This has been going on for years. It is nothing new from this administration.

If it is #2 - Well, then there is no solution. Just ignore any and all efforts to build actual allies in the middle east and paint them all with the same brush. I am sure that will work.

Someone mentioned "secret committees" above. Do you mean the President and his cabinet? or the FTC? The executive branch pretty much has control over this decision. Given that it is one foreign company selling out to another foreign company, I am not sure there is anything we can do about it.

 

[TheEgg]

Donning my Nomex.

1. The ports have been run by a foreign owned company for years.
2. There is no actual EVIDENCE that the UAE company would in any way run the ports differently than the British company.
3. The UAE has been very cooperative in the fight against terrorism.
4. Security is handled by our own security agencies, not the port company.
5. The Democrats and Republicans have jumped on this as an easy way to garner public support by appealing to the racist and xenophobic tendencies of many Americans. Both are looking for any way to dump on Bush, as his popularity numbers shrink.
6. The irony of Democrats, of all people, objecting to this, is overwhelming.
7. 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!).

Bring me some kind of EVIDENCE that the new owner of the port company is in any way going to compromise security, and then we have an issue.

Otherwise, this is all just a cheap political grand stand play, reeking of racism. If you buy into this, then let us go around and make sure that none of our security or strategic assests have any Arabs in them at all -- after all, they MIGHT be a security liability. No evidence needed, just the fact that they are Arab/Muslim will do.

<Hunkering down now!>

 

[RealGun]

Donning my Nomex.

1. The ports have been run by a foreign owned company for years.
2. There is no actual EVIDENCE that the UAE company would in any way run the ports differently than the British company.
3. The UAE has been very cooperative in the fight against terrorism.
4. Security is handled by our own security agencies, not the port company.
5. The Democrats and Republicans have jumped on this as an easy way to garner public support by appealing to the racist and xenophobic tendencies of many Americans. Both are looking for any way to dump on Bush, as his popularity numbers shrink.
6. The irony of Democrats, of all people, objecting to this, is overwhelming.
7. 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!).

Bring me some kind of EVIDENCE that the new owner of the port company is in any way going to compromise security, and then we have an issue.

Otherwise, this is all just a cheap political grand stand play, reeking of racism. If you buy into this, then let us go around and make sure that none of our security or strategic assests have any Arabs in them at all -- after all, they MIGHT be a security liability. No evidence needed, just the fact that they are Arab/Muslim will do.

<Hunkering down now!>

Nice to know that there are still reasonable, objective people on THR. Skepticism is fine in my opinion, but kneejerk negativism is not.

 

[Manedwolf]

Having been deployed to the UAE during Desert Shield, I think I would trust them as much, if not more than the Saudis. Reading what Preacherman said, I think he just may be right. Even now, we can only inspect 6% of the cargo containers, if that.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia has been off-limits in the investigation.

Money to them was funneled through Dubai. The UAE DID NOT COOPERATE in the post-9/11 investigation of bank transfers.

Dubai's OWN ports have been a major transfer point for illegal nuclear materials going to Iran and Libya.

Give them control of ours? Brilliant!

 

[Manedwolf]

Donning my Nomex.

Otherwise, this is all just a cheap political grand stand play, reeking of racism. If you buy into this, then let us go around and make sure that none of our security or strategic assests have any Arabs in them at all -- after all, they MIGHT be a security liability. No evidence needed, just the fact that they are Arab/Muslim will do.

<Hunkering down now!>

It just absolutely astonishes me when people supporting "anything the administration does" will one day scream and froth to "nuke all'em mooslems", and then the next, find nothing wrong with turning over port security to "mooslems".

I have to wonder at that sort...which is it?

 

[Leatherneck]

I was discussing this with my boss at breakfast, and his take was: "Why would we do this?" My put was: "What's the problem?" What we came to was OPSEC: operational security might be jeopardized if Dubai HQ routinely got a listing of, say, each container ship's arrival date and scheduled berth. Who knows where that schedule would wind up after reaching Dubai? Of course, the same could be said about London, or any city for that matter.

I really think that security of our maritime infrastructure has problems much worse than who owns corporate HQ.

TC

 

[fourays2]

this is just the latest example of bush stepping on his thingy. I don't see how he can consistantly read the mood of the public so badly. He needs to be told in no uncertain terms that people are wise to all the civil liberty infringements his WoT is causing and they no longer trust him. People are starting to realize what a joke the WoT is when we have examples like this and the wide open borders, yet we are to accept more intrusions on our individual liberties? I don't think so, and neither do a lot of other people.