|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2006 : 19:50:39 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Dude, I see it as both an exaggeration and rash simplification to say we're giving "port security details" to the UAE. As I've said before, the jobs of security is still run by U.S. officials, we're talking about single terminals, not whole ports, and most of the actual workers privy to any remaining "security details" would be Americans while half of the Dubai employees aren't even Arabs.
The company is owned by the UAE government.
Some of the employees (high level) will be from the UAE and other parts of the Arabic world. The head-honcho is the Sheik of Dubai (or whatever its called), but yes he hired an American COO to run the company.
In order to manage the port a company must be explicitly aware of the security procedures.
In a robust system, the company managing the port will have significant input into new security policies that get developed and also in the review and update of current security policies.
It is in no way an exageration or simplification to say that we'll be giving port security details to the UAE.
To paraphrase you, marf, this has been stated before. Apparently you just weren't paying attention.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 19:59:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
The company is owned by the UAE government.
No kidding. That's been stated over and over and over again. Nobody's freaking out over the Port of San Franciso being managed by a company owned by a foreign government.
quote:
Some of the employees (high level) will be from the UAE and other parts of the Arabic world.
Yup. And every Arab is a potential terrorist right? Even ones who work for big Western-friendly companies, surrounded by non-Westerners, and who have to have to go through serious personal security checks now just to step foot into the United States.
quote:
The head-honcho is the Sheik of Dubai (or whatever its called), but yes he hired an American COO to run the company.
Irrelevant. As you just wrote - he hired an American to run the company. He also has serious economic interest in not letting things go afoul. But he's Arab, right, so he must be a potential terrorist!
quote:
In order to manage the port a company must be explicitly aware of the security procedures.
Procedures and policies yes. Details no. And once again - it isn't the entire port. One terminal per port. One dock. |
"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 - 03/04/2006 : 20:36:44 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Yup. And every Arab is a potential terrorist right?
quote:
But he's Arab, right, so he must be a potential terrorist!
What the fuck are you talking about?
nevermind.... it isn't worth my time to deal with you. You obviously can't address the issues so you resort to accusations of racism.
Are you Arabic or something? Or maybe a closet Arab-hater?
The baseless accusations of racism towards people who are critical of this deal, based on very valid security concerns, is just the Bush admin's way to make people shut up. Don't like this deal? You must be a fucking racist! Its a particularly effective way to silence oposition from liberals, actually. Have to make them sit back and come up with a way to say, in the 6 second soundbite, why they oppose the deal and how it isn't racist to oppose it. The effect ends up that the opposition has to spend way to much time defending themselves from slander rather than advancing legitimate concerns.
So, seriously, you need to retract you comments. Nobody here is racist, and you damn well know it.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:39:45 [Permalink]
|
Steven Pearlstein, a columnist with the Washington Times had an interesting discussion online about the Dubai deal. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/28/DI2006022800556.html?sub=new However, since you have to sign in with the website to read it, I'll just quote the parts that addressed security concerns: quote:
Medford, Oregon: Hi Steven: In all the hubbub about Dubai Ports World operating some of our ports I haven't seen any discussion of who would vet DPW employees, especially their midlevel managers. It seems to me like an excellent opportunity for mischief-makers to collect information.
Steven Pearlstein: There is no particular reason to believe that mischief makers, or bad guys, would chose to try to infiltrate a Dubai owned port operator over a British owned operator at the operational level you speak of. At that level, the supervisors and staff are going to be almost exclusively local (that is, Americans). And as I understand it, there are some checks on those hirings now. Those checks might be inadequate, but that has very little to do with the ultimate corporate ownership. It has to do with the local management and the local security personnel, which is where the debate ought to be focused, in my opinion.
Purcellville, VA: When it comes to the security of our country, there are some jobs that just should not be trusted to foreigners. I doubt the President would allow the United Arab Emirates to do the hiring of his personal security, don't you?
Steven Pearlstein: That's an interesting way of thinking about it, I suppose. But the United Arab Emirates isn't doing the hiring of port personnel either -- and this is not just knit picking about words. The United Arab Emirates has a controlling ownership interest in the private, profit making company that has a lease to run six ports. The company has executive officers, some of whom are Arab, some not, as well as local managers for each of the ports, who we would expect will all be loyal American citizens. We can also limit the contact between these port managers and headquarter on certain issues, as a condition of approving the leases or the sale. You might, by the way, ask the same question regarding the president's security guard and the venerable British-owned company that is selling its port management operations.
Springfield, VA: Mr. Pearlstein,
I am a long-time resident of the Washington area. Although I try to keep up with the politics of this town, I must say that I never saw this one coming. I find the prospect of ANY foreign governorship/stewardship of ANY US government operation (airport, sea port, whatever) very disturbing.
The fact that the ports in question have been run by a foreign-owned company is shocking. It also begs the question "What other operations have been contracted out to foreign-owned companies?"
In this day and age of terrorism, hate mongering and anti-US sentimentality, how can any government official sanction such a deal and think that the citizens of this country would not be outraged?
Really concerned in Springfield
Steven Pearlstein: I think it is self-evident that ports are, by their nature, involved in international trade. So it shouldn't be surprising that the companies that are good at running ports are global, gaining efficiencies and know-how by having operations in various countries. In fact, we know that multinational corporations like that don't really have nationalities, although they are headquartered in one place or another for tax and corporate registration purpose. Some are American. Some are British. Some, I'm sure, are headquartered in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. But corporations are really legal fictions. What matters is people -- who they are, where their loyalties lay, what functions they perform an |
"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 03/04/2006 20:53:07 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 20:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Dude, those two sentences about all Arabs being potential terrorists, that you so neatly quoted out of context, were in response to these two statements of yours:quote:
Some of the employees (high level) will be from the UAE and other parts of the Arabic world.
andquote:
The head-honcho is the Sheik of Dubai (or whatever its called), but yes he hired an American COO to run the company.
The rather clear implication was that we should be concerned about the employees who are Arabs because as Arabs, they are potential Muslim extremists who might either commit terrorism or allow others to commit terrorism. So my response was perfectly appropriate.
I have not called you a racist. In fact, I explicitly wrote that I know you are not a racist. I know you are not because you have said that you'd oppose any foreign country, even our Western allies, from owning port management. So at worst, you could be called xenophobic, depending on whether your fears could be considered rational or irrational.
|
"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 03/04/2006 20:51:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 21:03:24 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
The rather clear implication was that we should be concerned about the employees who are Arabs because as Arabs, they are potential Muslim extremists who might either commit terrorism or allow others to commit terrorism. So my response was perfectly appropriate.
You have clearly fallen and hit your head.
But please, feel free to continue to invent slanderous bullshit.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 03:30:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude, instead of accusing me of slander, why don't you explain what you meant by those two sentences? Did you not mean that as Arabs, those employees are potential terrorists or potential terrorist accomplices? If that is not what you meant, then please explain why you even mentioned it.
As I recall, I have not once called you a "racist" and I've twice now said that I know you are not a racist. So if I am committing slander, I'd love to know what that slander is. |
"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 03/05/2006 03:30:47 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2006 : 11:02:09 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
As I recall, I have not once called you a "racist" and I've twice now said that I know you are not a racist. So if I am committing slander, I'd love to know what that slander is.
Implied racism isn't slanderous to you?
You are no longer worth responding to.
|
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 - 03/06/2006 : 06:51:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: quote:
If they do, it is still indicative of an arrogant and untrustworthy administration. His motivations indicate he is more than willing to barge ahead with anything he puts his mind to irrespective of propriety or legality. Security be damned, my way or the highway type of thinking.
But the Bush administration has agreed to the 45 day investigation of security risks. The only legislation that Bush now threatens to veto is legislation that would block the deal regardless of what the review shows. So the administration did compromise and was swayed.
Only after facing full rebellion by Republican party loyalists. This President is a rigid thinker who has consistantly refused to analyze data which refutes his position. The only change here was due to his own party telling him where to get off, not due to information presented.
quote:
My original point in this thread was that certain Democrats were taking advantage of public prejudice against Muslims/Arabs by over-reacting to this deal instead of dealing with the concerns calmly and rationally.
No more than certian Republicans. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 17:47:21 [Permalink]
|
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/ports.htm
quote:
"All of the rules were bent on this one," a congressional source said. "We had a major security review managed by political appointees."
But most of the objections were not recorded in the proceedings of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the sources said. They said the objections remained off the record for "technical reasons." Later, the heads of some of the agencies denied that their representatives raised concerns.
But it is apparently racist to even have an objection to this thing...
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 18:19:06 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: quote:
This President is a rigid thinker who has consistantly refused to analyze data which refutes his position. The only change here was due to his own party telling him where to get off, not due to information presented.
quote:
No more than certian Republicans.
I agree with you on both counts. |
"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 03/06/2006 18:19:29 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2006 : 18:31:51 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
But it is apparently racist to even have an objection to this thing...
This is so stupid, I barely know where to begin. I never called you a racist, much less call (or even imply) that anyone who objects to this deal is a racist. In fact I made several statements to the contrary, saying that Val and your objections, as you both put them forth, were not from a racist point of view.
However, when you specified that part of your objection was that some of the employees will still be Arab and the "head-honcho" is the "Sheik of Dubai" that does technically fall into the category of prejudice. I responded with the question "So all Arabs are potential terrorists, right?" Instead of explaining how you didn't mean it in a xenophobic way, you just started freaking out, accusing me of slander, telling me I've fallen and hit my head, then saying I wasn't worth responding to anymore.
Since apparently I am still worth responding to, I will answer your question: quote:
Implied racism isn't slanderous to you?
No. In fact, accusing someone of racism isn't slander. (Of course I didn't accuse you of being a racist. My actual words were: "So at worst, you could be called xenophobic, depending on whether your fears could be considered rational or irrational."
Slander is false and intended to injure the victim's reputation. So I've injured your reputation on SFN by accusing you of maybe being somewhat xenophobic? Gimme a break. |
"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 03/06/2006 18:33:57 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 06:50:53 [Permalink]
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11718494/
Republicans introduce legislation to bar foreign governments from owning ports.
It's not a Democrat thing. Never was. |
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 - 03/08/2006 : 11:08:31 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
Republicans introduce legislation to bar foreign governments from owning ports.
It's not a Democrat thing. Never was.
If both Democrats and Republicans have introduced such legislation in response to the Dubai port deal, then it is a "thing" for both. Where in this conversation has anyone said that the port deal was only objected to by Democrats?
Are you trying to say that it is only a Republican thing? Because the facts do not support that position. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2006 : 12:44:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
Republicans introduce legislation to bar foreign governments from owning ports.
It's not a Democrat thing. Never was.
If both Democrats and Republicans have introduced such legislation in response to the Dubai port deal, then it is a "thing" for both. Where in this conversation has anyone said that the port deal was only objected to by Democrats?
Are you trying to say that it is only a Republican thing? Because the facts do not support that position.
"Then I started hearing about all the Democrats who are taking advantage of peoples' ethic and racial prejudices by attacking the Bush administration over it, and that those attacks are effective with the public. This doesn't exactly improve my opinion of the Democratic party." -- marfknox, original post.
I made the statement that it wasn't a Democrat thing by refuting the above statement with the Republican opposition to show bipartisan support for the measure. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
