Interesting: US ports controlled by evil. (in Off-topic)

Something or other is happening and its some other countries fault... I think. Ask Ranger for the details since I haven't been reading up on my news lately. Flame away.

Summary: Six of your US ports are run by a British company that is about to be taken over by a Dubai company. The typical US assumption that all Arabs are terrorists is making the politicians a little nervous.

I'd be careful of using the word "evil" if I were you. What, exactly, are you talking about?

This will not be the first time a foreign entity has taken control of a US port.

The freemarket is acting just the way George Bush wants it to be.

One thing I have learned is that threads like this serve almost no purpose then to incite people.

Let us move on to other things of interest, such as how Ranger's Tattoo is about to be passed up by a NCB user.

I think he's just inciting debate. Don't be so cynical.

Or maybe I shouldn't be so naive...

Oh I just realized he was just trolling and trying to annoy Ranger by mimicking what said in the other post.

So I guess I am just naive for taking him seriously =P

Syriana!

I've been meaning to see that Bast, but I still haven't managed to. I suppose its only fitting though since I waited almost two years just to see Traffic.

As for the topic, yeah like I said above, I am not informed on what is going on and yeah inciting debate and providing a subject that Ranger would rather talk about was all I was doing. So far I don't see what the commotion is all about with this port thing.

Vestax: As for the topic, yeah like I said above, I am not informed on what is going on and yeah inciting debate and providing a subject that Ranger would rather talk about was all I was doing. So far I don't see what the commotion is all about with this port thing.

The furor over the proposed transfer of port facilities has many causes, Vestax.

The Situation:

-Dubai Ports World has offered to buy the British Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which currently controls commercial shipping operations in six US cities, for roughly 6.8 billion USD. With the acquisition of POSNC will come the rights to the port facilities in the US.

Seeing as funding for the 9/11 terrorists came from the United Arab Emirates, which controls Dubai Ports World, many people and groups wonder whether allowing the takeover to occur might create a potential security risk.

The Major Players

Mass Media:

-Nothing brings up the ratings like a good controversy. The spectre of Arab terrorism is just gravy and a side of fresh waffles.

President Bush:

-Bush believes blocking the deal would simply further stoke anti-American sentiments in the UAE and annoy one of the few halfway supportive countries in the Persian Gulf region, so he's promised to veto any legislation that blocks the deal. He might also be trying to court the free trade interests in the US, though that's really rather debatable given his performance thus far.

Democrats:

-Ever desperate to appear strong against foreign competition, national security and the war on terror, and not to mention following their usual policy of opposing the President, the Democrats have taken the position that allowing an Arab company to control the business affairs of the ports in question would almost certainly present a security risk to the United States.

The Democrats need to regain the confidence of the electorate for the upcoming midterm elections, and the ports issue is perfect to show the country that the party hasn't quite rolled over and died. Siding with the House and Senate Republicans to override a promised Bush veto would make their year.

Republicans:

-A strong stance on preventing terrorism means the Republicans have little choice but to back the prevailing wisdom in this case. Agreeing to let the deal go through would let the Democrats take control of the national security debate, and Bob knows letting the opposition steal a party plank won't win you elections. House leaders have already mentioned siding with the Democrats to override a Bush veto.

United Arab Emirates:

-The company that could take control of the commercial activities of the ports is a state-owned company. The UAE have significant interests in commercial shipping throughout the world, and seek to strengthen their position with the proposed business deal. The UAE also hopes to bolster their homegrown stock exchange by making Dubai Ports World the most valuable stock listed.

Thanks for the more complete update IA.

Initial reaction: How asinine must we be?!?!? Shame on us!

2nd thought: That's a _lot_ of political capital to expend on something so guaranteed to be a hot-button issue. (Syriana!)

3rd: Well, it's not as if we couldn't do it ourselves, right?

4th: A big, noisy veto threat? Syriana!

Conclusion: I am not against a UAE, or any mid-Eastern company, doing the job of "running" our ports -- including security. I _am_ against anything the Bush administration, and _only_ the Bush administration, so vocally and self-contradictorily supports -- there's either a quid or a quo there that I am not "pro" on.

For everyone not caught up in the media hoopla and the "OMG IT'S A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY" train of thought who can't be reasoned with anyway....

The US didnt put these ports up for sale and then the UAE based company bid for them. The ports were already managed by a British Company, P&O, which is in the process of being bought out by the company based in the UAE. Keep in mind that security for the ports, contrary to what some politicians are saying, will still be the responsibility of the US.

The UAE is considered an ally of the US and an ally in fighting Islamic terrorism. Think for a minute how this alliance would be compromised if we decided "Hey, it's OK if a European country operates our ports, but not an Arab country. Don't want no folks of a certain skin color and religion to get a foothold on US soil." If we are going to allow foreign ownership of the operation of our ports, we can't just reject one foreign company because "it's Arab". Remember, they won't own the port itself and they won't own the security for the port - they'll own the operation of the port.

- The company is really just a holding company. There aren't going to be Arab workers in America. The port workers will remain the same.

- This company already runs port operations in many countries, including countries that routinely ship into the U.S. If they wanted to use their company for terror, they could already do so (only a tiny fraction of shipping containers are ever inspected, and this won't change no matter who operates the ports).

- The government vetted them, and the company was completely cooperative.

- The UAE has bent over backwards to help the U.S. in the Middle East and in the war on terror. They did not fund the 9/11 attacks, UAE is not the same place as Saudi Arabia.

Also, having middle eastern countries that have significant financial interest in US operations gives the US leverage in the same way that having the US dependent on middle eastern oil gives middle eastern countries leverage over the US. If push comes to shove and the UAE begins behaving badly, the US would have a multi-billion dollar operation to use as leverage.

Just some facts and thoughts to chew on.