Arab control of Seaports

[Ghost of BiB]

I think Soprano did, but he's not posting anymore...

607698[/snapback]

 

Back in my environmental remediation days, I did some work for the Georgia Ports authority - and as such had to deal with port management a lot, as well as enter and exit the container lots a lot. Even pre-9/11, things were pretty tightly controlled. I have a hard time believing that anyone would have just given this carte blanche without some serious thought. Once again, IMO primaraily port security rests on what is coming in, and who is shipping/bringing it. Who is actually managing port services really shouldn't have that much, if any impact. A little too much "24" getting watched in some parts. And, once again what kind of message does is send current and desired muslim partners if we politicize this and make it anti-arab? They are killing people over cartoons already. This could be a message to moderate Islam that the US is willing to partner in significant ways with their arab friends. Instead, folks like AQ can point this out as another example of US hypocrisy towards it's ME partners. Think there are any US or European folks in ME oil and gas fields? How about the terminals?

[Like A Mofo]

How would you like your burger?

607710[/snapback]

 

the way this country is going (more concerned about video games, hollywood celebs then education) this statement will ring true.

[X. Benedict]

Back in my environmental remediation days, I did some work for the Georgia Ports authority - and as such had to deal with port management a lot, as well as enter and exit the container lots a lot. Even pre-9/11, things were pretty tightly controlled. I have a hard time believing that anyone would have just given this carte blanche without some serious thought. Once again, IMO primaraily port security rests on what is coming in, and who is shipping/bringing it. Who is actually managing port services really shouldn't have that much, if any impact. A little too much "24" getting watched in some parts. And, once again what kind of message does is send current and desired muslim partners if we politicize this and make it anti-arab? They are killing people over cartoons already. This could be a message to moderate Islam that the US is willing to partner in significant ways with their arab friends. Instead, folks like AQ can point this out as another example of US hypocrisy towards it's ME partners. Think their are any US or European folks in ME oil and gas fields? How about the terminals?

607713[/snapback]

Is this a fair statement:

 

Port Management is totally independant of Port Security.

 

 

If it is true, then there should be no problem, right?

If there are shared responsibilities, or overlap, then possibly that is a matter of concern regarding management and ownership.

[Ghost of BiB]

Is this a fair statement:

 

Port Management is totally independant of Port Security.

If it is true, then there should be no problem, right?

If there are shared responsibilities, or overlap, then possibly that is a matter of concern regarding management and ownership.

607723[/snapback]

 

I'm pretty certain that port management has a lot to do with security. That is also why I think this was vetted, and those particular issues addressed. I also think it very proper that any details of such remain not discussed in the press.

 

And again, none of this has any bearing on what gets shipped in from where and by who. Does it?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Thanks for clearing that up...this I did not know...but honestly...why even open yourself to questions if you are a member of the Bush administration...especially after 9/11 AND especially since two of the ports in question are right around New York...make everything American...but I guess that thinking is thinking of the past. 

 

For PR reasons alone, this is a mistake IMO.  And I am not a Bush basher by any means.

607705[/snapback]

 

And I'll say it AGAIN: This administration flat-out sucks at marketing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm pretty certain that port management has a lot to do with security. That is also why I think this was vetted, and those particular issues addressed. I also think it very proper that any details of such remain not discussed in the press.

 

And again, none of this has any bearing on what gets shipped in from where and by who. Does it?

607731[/snapback]

 

Someone needs to ask this question: what functions, precisely, are being turned over in this sale?

[Ghost of BiB]

Someone needs to ask this question: what functions, precisely, are being turned over in this sale?

607734[/snapback]

 

I'd like to see the answer, because "operations" pretty much should = "logistical" and "administrative". Headlines using words like "Control Of Our Ports", are meant to convey a certain sense, as they always do. To me, "control of" and "operation of" have two different meanings.

 

But, media would never try to shape the news. How many times was Cheney's target described as being in "intensive care in xyz hospital", when the surgeon, the hospital administration and the victim himself said he was staying there for privacy, and not health reasons? Privacy from who - maybe the press?

 

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but take all of it together and try to convince me that the media doesn't affect policy through the angles it takes in presenting a story. Here is a situation that could have long term trickle down implications. But, by choosing to present this in a certain light, it places people into a short term reaction mode. Who's to say the right call will get made either way? React to the story, not the facts. That's going to get us real far.

[OnTheRocks]

And I'll say it AGAIN: This administration flat-out sucks at marketing.

607733[/snapback]

 

it reminds me (sort of) of the Tom Donahoe/Mike Mularkey pairing in the Bills front office. A marketing disaster. "we are doing it our way, and we don't have to tell you anything.....now stfu!....you suck". Or something to that effect.

 

 

Turning your supporters against you is a bad idea.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'd like to see the answer, because "operations" pretty much should = "logistical" and "administrative". Headlines using words like "Control Of Our Ports", are meant to convey a certain sense, as they always do. To me, "control of" and "operation of" have two different meanings.

 

But, media would never try to shape the news. How many times was Cheney's target described as being in "intensive care in xyz hospital", when the surgeon, the hospital administration and the victim himself said he was staying there for privacy, and not health reasons? Privacy from who - maybe the press?

 

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but take all of it together and try to convince me that the media doesn't affect policy through the angles it takes in presenting a story. Here is a situation that could have long term trickle down implications. But, by choosing to present this in a certain light, it places people into a short term reaction mode. Who's to say the right call will get made either way? React to the story, not the facts. That's going to get us real far.

607751[/snapback]

 

I was watching the local FoxSnooze coverage of this last night. One of the features of their story was an interview with a B-more resident complaining about how her kids were going to be unsafe because we're "selling our ports" to the rag-heads. One of the other feature points was a bullet-point list of the UAE's "involvement" in 9/11: some of the money went through a UAE bank (news flash: ALL the money went through American banks...so what?), and one of the hijackers was from the UAE. And because of THAT, a company owned by the friggin' sand !@#$s can't be given maintenance contracts on US ports. There was virtually NO news in the story whatsoever, just bias.

 

And yes...I typed "rag heads" and "sand !@#$s". Because let's characterize this story as what it actually is: straight-up, unadulterated xenophobic racism.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I was watching the local FoxSnooze coverage of this last night.  One of the features of their story was an interview with a B-more resident complaining about how her kids were going to be unsafe because we're "selling our ports" to the rag-heads.  One of the other feature points was a bullet-point list of the UAE's "involvement" in 9/11: some of the money went through a UAE bank (news flash: ALL the money went through American banks...so what?), and one of the hijackers was from the UAE.  And because of THAT, a company owned by the friggin' sand !@#$s can't be given maintenance contracts on US ports.  There was virtually NO news in the story whatsoever, just bias. 

 

And yes...I typed "rag heads" and "sand !@#$s".  Because let's characterize this story as what it actually is: straight-up, unadulterated xenophobic racism.

607760[/snapback]

 

I even have no problem with this. The ports are so wide-open anyway, it doesn't matter WHO runs them.

[Ghost of BiB]

And yes...I typed "rag heads" and "sand !@#$s". Because let's characterize this story as what it actually is: straight-up, unadulterated xenophobic racism

 

Yup. There is that. Let's not ignore the chance to prove that the administration doesn't care about security either. I'm pretty certain that no one has done any thinking about seaports and container movement over the last few years.

[GG]

And yes...I typed "rag heads" and "sand !@#$s".  Because let's characterize this story as what it actually is: straight-up, unadulterated xenophobic racism.

607760[/snapback]

 

But of course. And it reminds me of the much forgotten proposed textile trade deal with Pakistan back in the mid '90s. The trade pact was scuttled from the opposition by US textile industry, and leads to the question of how exactly do we expect third world countries to raise their standard of living?

[Scraps]

But of course. And it reminds me of the much forgotten proposed textile trade deal with Pakistan back in the mid '90s.  The trade pact was scuttled from the opposition by US textile industry, and leads to the question of how exactly do we expect third world countries to raise their standard of living?

607796[/snapback]

 

I don't see the two as being remotely similar. The opposition to the port management deal is done on a security basis. The position might be flawed because people might have the wrong idea of what port operations are really being contracted out, but I think the heart of many of those opposed is in the right place.

 

The textile issue was one of pure job protection in an era of globalization. Were national security concerns first and foremost in anyones mind?

 

Is the UAE really a third world country? Seems like they have to be one of the richest Arab countries in the world. Hardly similar to Pakistan.

[Ghost of BiB]

I even have no problem with this. The ports are so wide-open anyway, it doesn't matter WHO runs them.

607764[/snapback]

 

Someone else answer for Balt, NY, etc - but what I saw at the GPA was that each major thing (security, environmental, transportation, etc) plus the overall directorship was headed by a state government employee(s) of the ports authority. Contractors were not in charge of anything, they answered to the government official on-site, part of who's job was to provide oversight. I'm guessing that the others operate in a similar fashion, otherwise, why would the port be considered run by or even called the Ports Authority? As far as security issues go, who is in charge of vetting and verifying the Longshoremen? The Union? The PA? That's to me a potentially weak link in the chain. Can I see a show of hands as to how many here think the Longshoremen's Unions are going to suddenly be overrun with muslims? Besides the ones already there?

[GG]

I don't see the two as being remotely similar.  The opposition to the port management deal is done on a security basis.  The position might be flawed because people might have the wrong idea of what port operations are really being contracted out, but I think the heart of many of those opposed is in the right place.

 

The textile issue was one of pure job protection in an era of globalization.  Were national security concerns first and foremost in anyones mind?

 

Is the UAE really a third world country?  Seems like they have to be one of the richest Arab countries in the world.  Hardly similar to Pakistan.

607812[/snapback]

 

Let me see if I can connect the dots for you.

 

There is a huge connection between the two, if for nothing but to further escalate the rhetoric on the other side of why America is evil. On one hand it refuses a trade deal with an impoverished Muslim nation, and then it breaks a contract with a rich Muslim nation who has the capability to operate a port.

 

But, for the real reason the two are closely linked in the root of Muslim extremism. As long as their societies continue to function as latter day cerfdoms, you will find fertile ground for terrorists. By opening more of the world's markets to Pakistani textiles, you give an opening to grow that industry and lift others as the overall economy picks up. Of course, you have to sacrifice by killing a dying US textile industry that much faster.

 

The extension, is the role that Dubai plays in this. While the country is the playground to the world's rich, the vast majority of the workers are Indian & Pakistani, who are one level above indentured servants. I don't imagine they prefer a life of servitude under the sheiks' robes, and would probably prefer to work closer to home, maybe in a textile factory.

 

Meanwhile everyone here plays the political game, only worrying about today's ramifications on the polls, without considering long-term effects. BTW, if we apply the criteria labeled by the critics of the deal, that Dubai shouldn't get the contracts because 9/11 money flowed through Dubai, then we shouldn't do any business with Germany, because the actual 9/11 plan was hatched and planned there.

[blzrul]

For anyone who's never visited a port, or hasn't done so recently- you can just waltz right out there without question. Newark NJ? No problem. Seattle, one of the busiest last year? Sure 'nuff. So UAE - go for it. How could you be worse?

 

Is there any reason to suppose that Bush Inc would be any more competent here, than they have been so far? Or will this be yet another in a long line of Bush failures that enrich his friends and family to the detriment of the rest of us? Why even bother to dissect and discuss it? Bush is making threats about what he'll do if he doesn't get his way. So it must be REALLY important to spread the wealth. Hmm maybe Dubai is going to hand OBL over in return for the contract? Uh huh.

 

Something about "being sold down the river" comes to mind in a sort of ironic way...

[Ghost of BiB]

For anyone who's never visited a port, or hasn't done so recently- you can just waltz right out there without question.  Newark NJ? No problem.  Seattle, one of the busiest last year?  Sure 'nuff. So UAE - go for it.  How could you be worse?

 

Is there any reason to suppose that Bush Inc would be any more competent here, than they have been so far?  Or will this be yet another in a long line of Bush failures that enrich his friends and family to the detriment of the rest of us?  Why even bother to dissect and discuss it?  Bush is making threats about what he'll do if he doesn't get his way.  So it must be REALLY important to spread the wealth.  Hmm maybe Dubai is going to hand OBL over in return for the contract? Uh huh. 

 

Something about "being sold down the river" comes to mind in a sort of ironic way...

608148[/snapback]

 

But, what is your threat? Is it people "walzing" into the port? Or is it what's in the containers and bulk ships being handled? If I'm going to attack an LPG tanker to blow it up, I'll do it from the water. Plus, blowing up an LPG tanker isn't going to do a lot anyway.

 

As for the rest of it, bite me - B word.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But, what is your threat? Is it people "walzing" into the port? Or is it what's in the containers and bulk ships being handled? If I'm going to attack an LPG tanker to blow it up, I'll do it from the water. Plus, blowing up an LPG tanker isn't going to do a lot anyway.

608157[/snapback]

 

Depends on where you place it. Driving one of those bloated things into the carrier berths at Norfolk looks bloody damned easy on a map and satellite photos...

 

 

(Yes, I know it wouldn't be nearly as easy as it looks on a map or satellite photos...but it's still real to me, dammit!)

[Chilly]

I wouldn't be against this, as long as we maintain administrative control over the ports.

 

Americans still overseeing what goes on - outside companies doing all the day-to-day operations, which is what I think Bush was trying to do based on what I saw on CNN today.

 

I would feel the same way whether it was a company in the UAE or in Canada that we were contracting to.

[Alaska Darin]

And I'll say it AGAIN: This administration flat-out sucks at marketing.

607733[/snapback]

I don't care about marketing on this one. It looks like a turd and smells like a turd. It's a turd. They can do all the validation studies they want to justify it - doesn't change the fact that it's another misstep that will open a Pandora's Box somewhere down the road.