|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/02/2006 : 06:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: quote:
Security is up to the individual ports and US customs rely on the port managers to inspect cargo. They will spot check from time to time but they and the Coast Guard lack the staffing to inspect every container. The Coast Guard is primarily concerned with port security in the manner of patrol of the harbors and excluding vessels from hostile nations. They usually do not board every vessel inbound to the US. If they could, there'd be a lot less Cubans in Florida.
Our security is bad, but as I said here once before, xenophobia is not a replacement for improved security. Also, this is why Dubai has to go through the security checks. Dubai may be owned by the UAE, but the company Dubai managing the ports is not the same as the UAE managing the ports.
And if noone does the security checks? Again, the vetting process this contract went through was completely and utterly flawed. As a result we don't know IF the company is qualified to run the business and provide adequate security.
quote:
quote:
A great majority of Muslims are peaceful. The UAE is in the middle of Wahhabist territory. Wahhabism is a radical subsect of Islam which terrorists are usually generated from. (Like radical Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians)
The question should be about who runs Dubai World Ports and whether that company is qualified to do the job. They don't get guilt by association with the fact that Wahhabism is prevalent in the geographic area that the UAE is in. The government of the UAE isn't run by radicals and the UAE has taken steps towards peace and cooperation with the USA which is why political analysts at NPR call the UAE a “moderate, friendly ally of the United States.” The UAE has a vested interest in not allowing terrorists to take advantage of Dubai's port management. You countered with, “Only because we pay them to.” So what if their motivations are money? That's the point – trade is a great way to make and keep friends.
And a company/small country which can be toppled by extremists is a clear and present threat to security. And trade is not what I meant by "because we pay them to". Foreign aid is.
quote:
There are radical Muslims in many countries around the world, including some Western nations as shown by terrorism like the bombing of public transit in Britain. If we have standards for security checks, let Dubai go through those checks and pass those standards. The rest should be up to US security forces.
And as more and more of the vetting process is revealed, it is clear that the have not gone through these checks.
quote:
And if that Port of SF is owned by the Chinese government and that didn't cause a stink, that's just further evidence that politicians on both sides and the public are only freaking out because this deal involves Arab ownership.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/02/2006 09:28:21 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 06:44:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Florduh
If the events of 9/11 had included detonating a ship in an American port, this scenario would not have arisen. Can you imagine turning over any part of airport security to a muslim nation?
Muslims are our sworn enemy. Read the koran. Radical muslims are different only in that they announce that fact publicly. Muslim societies are objectively sub-standard when it comes to human rights. They are simply a culture with values totally alien to us. We as Americans are the most prominent infidels they have. We are their targets. My view is not racism because many different races, including Caucasian Americans, embrace Islam. Perhaps it is "religionism." Why must we be politically correct to the point of embracing a known enemy?
The president has shown that he has no interest in this country or its citizens, only an abiding interest in greed and power. He is our worst enemy. He wants to sell us out for his own short term gain. Almost all politicians seem to have that mindset, but this port security debacle is mind boggling in its implications.
I don't care what any given nation's official position on U.S. relations is on any given day. If the people of that nation are largely muslim, they simply cannot be trusted with our lives.
I am so sick of being fed a diet of muslim propaganda from our own people. Just read their holy book and you will know what their religion is about. If we don't want to fight our enemy, can't we at least recognize him?
- Florduh
What a load of uninformed crap.
I have read the Quran several times. It isn't about killing the infidel and it specifically only allows violence as self defense against violent religious oppression only. Muslims are by-and-large peaceful.
Our enemy is religious absolutism and ignorance. Whether that be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 11:32:00 [Permalink]
|
Halfmoonerquote:
marfknox, I think maybe your admitted hatred for Senator Clinton is getting the better of your reasoning on this one.
That's a really false assumption. I can tell you that I hate George W. Bush and his endorsed policies many many times more than Clinton and her endorsed policies. I can also tell you that even though I respect John McCain the man, because of too many of the policies he endorses, if I were given the choice of him or Clinton for president, I would vote for Clinton. I mentioned my hatred for Clinton and her type of moderate Democrats because the opportunity presented itself in the conversation and I was endulging myself. But my opinion on the Dubai issue is not guided by any feelings for Hillary Clinton. quote:
This certainly stirs up nightmares of "blind eyes" from a "porous place" looking aside as Al Qaeda infiltrates American port management.
Not when put into proper context. The nightmares are just that - nightmares. Not reality. I have presented lots of arguments and facts that support the stance that terrorist would have just as damn difficult a time taking advantage of DP World's management as any other company's management.
I really do think that people are being paranoid, and that paranoia is one of several barriers to making any kind of progress with Middle East relations. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 12:03:21 [Permalink]
|
From that article:
quote:
and an American-educated chairman…
Osama BinLaden was educated in the US.
This deal with DPW is a bad one.
You cannot escape the fact that this will turn over security details of these ports to an Arab government that has had clear ties to terrorism, assisted with the nuclear proliferation efforts of A.Q.Khan, and supported the worst form of Islamic extremism (the Taliban).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 12:25:05 [Permalink]
|
Aside from the security issues, I think the idea Daddy Bush will profit handsomely from this deal, (a rumor I haven't personally checked yet), is reason enough to be suspicious.
And, apparently Dubai made an actual attempt to get Lou Dobbs fired for some bothersome news report. That really bothers me. Since when should other governments, via big business connections, be allowed any leverage to censor our news media? As if the Bush admin isn't doing well enough on their own? |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/02/2006 12:26:21 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 12:41:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Again, the vetting process this contract went through was completely and utterly flawed.
“Completely and utterly” is quite an exaggeration.
quote:
As a result we don't know IF the company is qualified to run the business and provide adequate security.
Soon after the controversy began, DP World volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations until further review of security concerns are done. It is being discussed in Congress now. Further review is being done. So what's the problem?
quote:
And a company/small country which can be toppled by extremists is a clear and present threat to security.
I'd like to see some analysis that explains how the sovereignty of the UAE is under serious threat. The UAE is one of the richest Middle East nations. It lets the CIA have a base there, and has also opened facilities to be used by the US military in the “war of terror”. Also, half of the population isn't even Arab – they are Southeast Asians. So I don't know where you got that 70% supporting death to America. I don't see how the UAE government is getting replaced by Islamic extremists any time soon.
But even if it did, do you actually think that the UAE government being “toppled by extremists” wouldn't nullify the contracts?quote:
And trade is not what I meant by "because we pay them to". Foreign aid is.
First of all, please be more specific about what kinds of aid and what amounts. I mean, hell, Venezuela gave aid to many US cities this winter in the form of discounted gas to help with soaring heating costs. And second, so what? Again, what difference does it make what the UAE's motivation is for being friendly with the West? The point is that they are friendly.
People here keep trying to pin this on a, as Val put it, “secretive administration” and as Halfmooner put it, “Bush-crony incompetence”. But that assumes Bush was lying about not knowing about the deal (again, in normal such procedures, there's no reason he would know about it), and also, the connections to Bush made in the media are circumstantial. The original review was done by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, and that includes the DOD and Homeland Security. So are we assuming that everyone who played a role in the review is a spineless incompetent who is obeying orders from some vast conspiracy of big business? The review is classified, but is that not the norm? Dude posted the article on the Cost Guard concerns, but even that article stated, “Later, the Coast Guard said in a statement that the excerpts of its preliminary evaluation ‘when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis' that eventually concluded ‘that DP World's acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in ports' in the continental United States.”. Halfmooner responded with quote:
To me, that wraps things up concerning at least a conclusion that Dubai Ports World was not properly vetted, and it also gives strong hints that he takeover deal was probably pushed through in such a way as to deliberately quash any |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 12:53:05 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
Aside from the security issues, I think the idea Daddy Bush will profit handsomely from this deal, (a rumor I haven't personally checked yet), is reason enough to be suspicious.
Checking your facts before using it in a debate would be nice. But also, why is that reason to be suspicious. Most politicians at the top are rich. They have all sorts of connections to big business. Yes, it is a general reason for concern. But to pick out some specific connection like this and say it is reason to be suspicious of this specific deal is simply not a strong argument. Daddy Bush benefiting is circumstantial.
quote:
And, apparently Dubai made an actual attempt to get Lou Dobbs fired for some bothersome news report. That really bothers me. Since when should other governments, via big business connections, be allowed any leverage to censor our news media? As if the Bush admin isn't doing well enough on their own?
First, please quote source so I know exactly what you are talking about. Second, if they failed to get Lou Dobbs fired and then got caught trying to interfere, that hardly shows that they are being allowed to censor the American news media. In fact, it only shows that they are not allowed. As for the accusation that the Bush administration is censoring the media – give me a break. Please back up such a grand claim with evidence.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/02/2006 12:57:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 13:13:43 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dude:
quote:
Osama BinLaden was educated in the US.
Touché. But only in regards to that single fact about the chairman.
quote:
This deal with DPW is a bad one.
It's fine to say that; People here have put up a sensible argument for that. But I've put forth a sensible argument against that. Too bad political science is a very soft science.
quote:
You cannot escape the fact that this will turn over security details of these ports to an Arab government that has had clear ties to terrorism, assisted with the nuclear proliferation efforts of A.Q.Khan, and supported the worst form of Islamic extremism (the Taliban).
Yes, those would be some of the fact used to support the argument that the DPW deal will increase Islamic terrorism against the USA. I don't recall ever trying to “escape” the fact, I've disagreed with the interpretation. I've put forth a whole bunch of facts, that I don't care to repeat since anyone can just re-read them, used to support the argument that the DPW deal is beneficial to reducing Islamic terrorism against the USA. I've also put forth interpretation (from intelligent, knowledgeable, nonpartisan political analysts) of your facts that argues those facts should not be of great concern regarding port security.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 13:26:20 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
I've also put forth interpretation (from intelligent, knowledgeable, nonpartisan political analysts) of your facts that argues those facts should not be of great concern regarding port security.
Anyone who thinks the idea of giving an Arab government, with the record UAE has, open access to the security details of six major US ports "should not be of great concern" is a fucking idiot.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 13:41:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
Again, the vetting process this contract went through was completely and utterly flawed.
“Completely and utterly” is quite an exaggeration.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/01/port.security/index.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060224-123748-3727r.htm
It's hosed.
quote:
quote:
As a result we don't know IF the company is qualified to run the business and provide adequate security.
Soon after the controversy began, DP World volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations until further review of security concerns are done. It is being discussed in Congress now. Further review is being done. So what's the problem?
As the second review isn't done yet, claiming that DPW is qualified is not supportable. The status of their qualification is unknown at this time.
quote:
quote:
And a company/small country which can be toppled by extremists is a clear and present threat to security.
I'd like to see some analysis that explains how the sovereignty of the UAE is under serious threat. The UAE is one of the richest Middle East nations. It lets the CIA have a base there, and has also opened facilities to be used by the US military in the “war of terror”. Also, half of the population isn't even Arab – they are Southeast Asians. So I don't know where you got that 70% supporting death to America. I don't see how the UAE government is getting replaced by Islamic extremists any time soon.
But even if it did, do you actually think that the UAE government being “toppled by extremists” wouldn't nullify the contracts?
The number was quoted by an analyst who sourced Zogby. I've since looked at the full Zogby report and see where he took the numbers out of context. The premise was dependent on the numbers being in context. They are not so I withdraw this objection.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=561
quote:
quote:
And trade is not what I meant by "because we pay them to". Foreign aid is.
First of all, please be more specific about what kinds of aid and what amounts. I mean, hell, Venezuela gave aid to many US cities this winter in the form of discounted gas to help with soaring heating costs. And second, so what? Again, what difference does it make what the UAE's motivation is for being friendly with the West? The point is that they are friendly.
Freindly because they are paid to implies they could be bought out by a hostile go |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 13:44:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
marfknox said:
quote:
I've also put forth interpretation (from intelligent, knowledgeable, nonpartisan political analysts) of your facts that argues those facts should not be of great concern regarding port security.
Anyone who thinks the idea of giving an Arab government, with the record UAE has, open access to the security details of six major US ports "should not be of great concern" is a fucking idiot.
Was that really necessary, Dude? I don't think that such a statement forwards any facts or concerns at all. We all jumped on Hybrid for much of the same techniques.
You're better than this, Dude. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 13:44:35 [Permalink]
|
marfknox opined: quote:
Daddy Bush benefiting is circumstantial.
Merely "circumstantial"?
If true (and I'm going to try to research this), that would be exactly the source of fishy odor I was smelling earlier, and the hidden motivation for pushing this deal through without vettting its secuity aspects. If true, the deal should be shot down at once, permanently. No more damned Bush corruption at the expense of security!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 14:02:52 [Permalink]
|
Val said:
quote:
Was that really necessary, Dude? I don't think that such a statement forwards any facts or concerns at all. We all jumped on Hybrid for much of the same techniques.
You're better than this, Dude.
Necessary? Yes.
How else can it be said? The idea that security details of six major US ports could be in the hands of a government with the record of the UAE over the last 20 years.... is definitely something to be concerned about. Greatly concerned at that.
As previously noted, I object to any deal that would allow any foreign government access to those details.
It is irresponsible in the extreme when you consider who the UAE is and what they have done/supported/allowed in recent history.
DPW, owned by the UAE government, is engaged in a boycott of Israel. A state owned entity that is engaged in a boycott of Israel means that the state is engaged in a boycott of Israel.
If that isn't an indicator of Islamic extremism....
I stand by what I said.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 14:10:38 [Permalink]
|
I'll continue collecting items on Bush (both Bushes) connections with Dubai. Here's a start:
http://culturelifenewsbreaking.blogspot.com/2006/02/uae-sheiks-gave-bush-sr-1-million-gift.html
(The direct link to the AP story would not work correctly when pasted here.)
The AP article notes: quote:
The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors.
This article goes into the more-than-circumstantial relationships between the Dubai deal's players:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/02/ana06011.html
For instance: quote:
David Sanborn was an executive with CSX and, then, a senior Dubai Ports World executive whom Bush appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as Dubai Ports World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Gee, d'ya think Sanborn greased the skids for Dubai Ports World to get Bushite approval to run operations at six of our nation's ports?
D'ya think?
And:quote:
Why do we care about the Carlyle Group? I'll answer that by telling you who some of the investors are? Among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were
-- members of the family of Osama bin Laden
-- George Bush Sr
-- former British prime minister John Major
-- Frank Carlucci - Ronald Reagan's defense secretary
-- James A. Baker III
Still researching, especially to see if and how the Carlisle Group may fit in. More to follow.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2006 14:31:56 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 14:50:16 [Permalink]
|
More on the business connections that may be behind the ports deal. From the New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html
quote:
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
