I support this...

[Ken King]

It is fascinating that you people on the wrong side of this issue have repeatedly tried to make this an issue of race instead of national sovereignty.
Says alot about your argument or lack thereof.

You people? A little stereotypical this AM huh? Eat more bran, it will clear your brain.

This has not one freaking thing to do with national sovereignty. Now just incase you have missed it we allow many, I repeat many, foreign companies to conduct a multitude of businesses upon our shores. We allow them to own the company, we tell them which businesses they can be, and we tell them the ones they can’t be. Not one effen thing has changed by letting the Dubai owned company operate this business.

And to you a port is, uh....a 7-11. Gotcha.

No, a port is a port. How many ports do we have, hundreds? How many miles of shore line and how many unprotected boat ramps, piers, and beaches that you can put a descent sized craft up to?

How would Larry the terrorist attack a country? I would send a bomb in a shipping container on a boat that probably will be inspected due to where it does come from and will enter through a controlled port, but hey our brothers from the UAE operate that port so let’s give them our business and I’ll take it there.

I'm on the verge of speechless. You acknowledge that they do NOT reciprocate and yet still use it as in FAVOR of your position. It's OK for them but not us. Twilight zone.

You been working on the car again, breathing carb spray?

Nope, no carb spray, do you do this often?

Don’t reciprocate? Are you effen stupid or something? Have you read what I have posted and what others have posted? We have Air Bases there, we port in their harbors, they have oil, and they don’t like Iran. Talk about reciprocity.

I am not Bucko. Call me...Batman. Your analogy is pointless. Halliburton, like the Brit company selling, is NOT owned and operated by a foreign government.

And because our rules say that the officials of our government cannot own companies doing business with our government or with other nations is improper means what? Do we only allow those that are exactly like us to own businesses and work here? Fine, make it the rule but kick them all out. Every foreign business, every foreign operation, after all can we really trust them? They are foreigners.

That's all you really had to say:

Ken "The Wrong" King: US ports are not a vital US national interest.

Larry "Gash under Nose" Gude: This conversation is over. We have no basis for discussion as we disagree on the basic premise.




If I can't make it clear the distinction to you and Tex and MM the difference, to me, between foreign owned and foreign government owned then, again, there's no basis to even discuss this. YOU guys are talking apples. I'm talking oranges.

So, I ask you, what else can we sell to a foreign government? The contract to run the White house kitchen? Trash at Langley? I think you voted AMTRAK.
How about maintaining the Secret Services comm gear? If it ain't a national interest when it ships in from China, why would the M/R be a big deal?

I mean, they wouldn't own or even operate the radios; just work on 'em.

How about NASA? What if they could move the shuttle around for a few bucks less?

I know! How about they get the jobs to maintain and manage the interstate highway system? That's a pretty straight forward analogy.

Yeah, that’s all I have to say. Our government said that port operations are not a vital interest or they would have blocked any and all sale and control to them.

You and I know how you handle a vital interest. You and I didn’t decide how it will be done but it was done and that is what matters. Foreign ownership of port operations is allowed under our rules or it wouldn’t be happening. And Larry, as to the rest of this stuff that has obvious security issues I know you're just being sarcastic, but do me a favor, check out that space shuttle and see how many switches, circuits, relays and other items are actually “made in Taiwan” (or one of many countries you could enter here). Get back to me with that, will ya?

 

[vraiblonde]

Denying this deal is equal to ethnic discrimination and nothing else.

So what if it is? We are fighting a war against Arabs, so how does it make sense to give Arabs control of our ports?

No, a port is a port. How many ports do we have, hundreds? How many miles of shore line and how many unprotected boat ramps, piers, and beaches that you can put a descent sized craft up to?

Okay, so you're saying that since we have vulnerabilities, security precautions make no difference. I'll be sure to tell the airline people next time they want me to take off my shoes and give up my Bic lighter.

What if Bush approved the sale of our airports to Libya? After all, we have little tiny airports all over the country where terrorists could rent a private plane to do damage. And Quaddafy says that he'll behave himself from now on.

So what's the big deal?

 

[Ken King]

So what if it is? We are fighting a war against Arabs, so how does it make sense to give Arabs control of our ports?


Okay, so you're saying that since we have vulnerabilities, security precautions make no difference. I'll be sure to tell the airline people next time they want me to take off my shoes and give up my Bic lighter.

What if Bush approved the sale of our airports to Libya? After all, we have little tiny airports all over the country where terrorists could rent a private plane to do damage. And Quaddafy says that he'll behave himself from now on.

So what's the big deal?

I thought we were battling insurgents in Iraq and fanatical Islamic terrorists. Didn't know we declared war on all Arabs.

No, that is what you are saying.

What I have said and will say again is that the security will remain under the control of the United States as it did previously and will continue into the future. We have greater worries than just the ports. During the approval process nothing caused flags to be flown requiring greater scrutiny.

Many might not like the fact that we do have some Arab allies, but I like the idea we do. The "what-ifs", like many others used, imply that we are giving up property or security control. Has anyone, anyone I say, seen or heard that this was the case?

 

[Bruzilla]

So, if your going to start insulting me, may I presume that's the end of your argument?

As far as a company being different than a nation, you've truly left me speechless. Again, what does Washington run in the UAE? What do we take over and when? By your logic, should be NO problem.

For the sake of argument, I'll hand you a few easy ones;

Differences:

Capital.
Labor.
Environmental issues.
Manufacturing standards.

In each and evey step of the way a business, any business, must aquire capital, deal with labor, respect the environment and conduct business to international norms and standards, from equipment safety to best practices to rules and regulations.

A corporation must answer to its nation. It is NOT a fully independent entity operating with no one to anser to. A government utlimately answer onlt to itself.

I can't believe you want this spelled out. You own stock in some ports, right?

Larry, you might want to check up on the rules and regs of foreign ownership before inserting your foot... errr... your keyboard in your yap. So far we've gone from arguments based on security to capital, labor, environmental issues, and manufacturing standards. Your point about a business plan taking these into account is correct, but you're contention that a foreighn company, or government, operating in the United States is immune to these is in error. Just as Citgo, which is wholly owned by the Venezuelan government, must conform to all of your stated issues in order to business in the US, so too will the UAE government.

 

[Bruzilla]

Stepping in? Under what provision of this sale do we have the right to take over operations, to absolve the sovereignty of the UAE? War powers act?

You can't even begin to imagine a scenario where suddenly a foreign government simply needs things to be ####ed up at a few ports for a few days or even hours?

I've spent over $500,000 with foreign COMPANIES in the past 5 years and all of it had to be shipped to US ports and we could have been screwed OUT OF BUSINESS had something happened to this stuff. I think you're looking through a tunnel and I don't think you have a clue, or refuse to admit it, how profoundly important the free, unfettered flow of goods is to countless small businesses.

By suggesting someone could 'step in' quickly you are showing a glint that there could be problems requiring intervention. I'm sick of you and the President pretending there is no legitimate concern here. You both belittle everyones reservations with a cavalier 'nothing to see here' wave of your hands. I'm chicken little you suggest.

Why would ANYONE ever have concerrns about a foreign government being in such a strategic position to cause harm?

How silly.

So, being the suave international businessman that you are, if the UAE government for some odd reason decided to close down the port of Baltimore, would you let your $500,000 in goods sit at the dock until the issue was resolved; or would you just get some trucks and have it taken to say Philadelphia or Charleston, or Norfolk, or NYC, or Jersey, or, or , or, to be shipped?

 

[FromTexas]

A UAE government owned entity mostly run by Americans.

 

[Tonio]

What do you base this "guess" on? Did you realize that the majority (close to 75%) of the population of the UAE are non-nationals and mostly Asian?

No, that's news to me. Thanks for the information.

You know we had knowledge that planes could be used as missiles a while ago, but that knowledge did little to curtail what was done on 9/11/01. And who was it that controlled those interests that were exploited?

Good point. For me, it comes down to this--most Middle Eastern governments are spoiled oligarchies, bloodthirsty secular dictatorships, or reactionary theocracies. None of them place much value on democracy and freedom of conscience. That in itself is scary enough.

Plus, the Muslims in those countries strongly resent the US for political and economic reasons as well as religious reasons. It's illogical to equate the US with the European powers that ruled much of the Middle East as colonies in the 20th century, but that illogic appeals to their false sense of victimhood.

So, I can't imagine working in the Middle East for an American embassy or an American oil company. I would feel like a black man in the Jim Crow South, or a dissident in the Soviet Union. Sometimes I think we should have bombed Tehran in 1979 the day after our hostages were seized, sacrificing the hostages if necessary, just to show that no one tries to push America around and gets away with it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

Larry, you might want to check up on the rules and regs of foreign ownership before inserting your foot... errr... your keyboard in your yap.

So far I have had to repeat everything I've said to you guys, over and over and over.

Ken doesn't think a port is a vital national security interest, none of you do. I do.

You think a business is no different than a government as regards ownership and operation of said ports. That leaves me speechless.

You think Citco is a good analogy here. That's absurd. Each station is idependently owned and operated and if the concept of how limited the number of ports are vs. a near endless supply of gas stations doesn't make a difference, then what is there for me to say? Nothing.

You think cargo can just suddenly be re-routed with no affect on the receiver. I already posted a direct experience I had. If you don't care to read it, I don't care to keep on re-posting it. You all can't even begin to see how anyone with ill intent would go about causing us problems.

You all will not admit that a foreign government operating and controlling in this instance is very different than a foreign company. I say foreign government as an objection, I get an endless stream of of examples of foreign companies. I can't make an argument for how sensitive ports are to our economy and teach reading for comprehension at the same time.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. My argument is plain and simply and not one fo you, not one, can stay on my objections without slipping off subject into excuses.

Bottom line, me:

I object to foreign GOVERNMENT operation and control of vital strategic US interests on our soil on grounds of the natural, inherent conflict of interest between nations; be it the UK. Be it France. Be it China. Be it the UAE.

You boobs: Ports are not vital strategic US interests and foreign government operation and control is no big deal. This is nothing new, blah, blah...

Congratulations gentlemen. You're arguments seem to be carrying the day in Congress.

So again, on deaf ears, I ask; What's next?

Forget I asked. You'll just repeat the same garbage about foreign parts and racism and our overseas bases and all of it is no big deal and completely ignore my objections anyway.

Sleep tight.

Just for shits and giggles; any of you guys wanna list all the benefits we, as a nation, will get out if this?

 

[Larry Gude]

Here yah go boys...

http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

...that oughta make you even happier.

 

[Larry Gude]

Anyone know...

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

...oh never mind. I got it; y'all DON'T care.

 

[Larry Gude]

BTW Tex...

At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

The law, ain't even on your side.

But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.

Opps...nevermind; You don't care. Couldn't POSSIBLY be a thing wrong with this idea.

Sorry.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nothing to see here...

Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.

Sounds like the administration bent the rules here. Wonder why? I mena, it's just a silly little port or to and a foreign GOVERNMENT who would NEVER use their advantage to even bother us...

I must be paranoid, huh?

 

[Larry Gude]

It should be noted...

Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.

...that...no, wait, ports are no different than gas stations. Gotta write that down somewhere. Maybe I could write it on y'alls asses seeings how they're sticking up in the air???

 

[Ken King]

So far I have had to repeat everything I've said to you guys, over and over and over.

It’s a two-way street Bucko.

Ken doesn't think a port is a vital national security interest, none of you do. I do.

I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strongest suit. I only said that our government doesn’t feel that port operations are a vital national interest or they wouldn’t authorize them to be conducted by foreign companies.

You think a business is no different than a government as regards ownership and operation of said ports. That leaves me speechless.

No, I don’t think there is much difference. If a company or government gets authorization to conduct the business they have bid on.

You all will not admit that a foreign government operating and controlling in this instance is very different than a foreign company. I say foreign government as an objection, I get an endless stream of of examples of foreign companies. I can't make an argument for how sensitive ports are to our economy and teach reading for comprehension at the same time.

The problem is that you still have yet to understand that the port security will be maintained by authorized US personnel and agencies, the company will only off-load, on-load, coordinate movement, and provide security for the items while they are in storage.

I can't be bothered with this anymore. My argument is plain and simply and not one fo you, not one, can stay on my objections without slipping off subject into excuses.

We are just chasing you all over the discussion because you don’t understand that the security of the port will in no way be impacted, regardless of your fears of what might happen.

Bottom line, me:

I object to foreign GOVERNMENT operation and control of vital strategic US interests on our soil on grounds of the natural, inherent conflict of interest between nations; be it the UK. Be it France. Be it China. Be it the UAE.

You boobs: Ports are not vital strategic US interests and foreign government operation and control is no big deal. This is nothing new, blah, blah...

And back to being the “Twistmeister”, I would say we all agree that true items of “vital national security” belong under appropriate US control, I have yet to see anyone state otherwise. But (and like you, it’s a big butt) this isn’t the case here. You are blinded by fear and cannot grasp that any company conducting port operations has nothing to do with port security. The may carry out their own cargo security but they have nothing to do with port security other than to be in compliance with it.

Congratulations gentlemen. You're arguments seem to be carrying the day in Congress.

And why would you think that is? Could it be that they, like us, see that you and your fears are unfounded?

Just for shits and giggles; any of you guys wanna list all the benefits we, as a nation, will get out if this?

Probably about the same benefit we got as when the Brit company was running the port operations.

 

[Ken King]

Larry,

You placed this quote in your post above.

At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

Now a real easy question, what U.S. company is being taken over? I sure as Hell thought this was about the takeover of the Brit P & O company.

 

[Ken King]

Of equal importance to note

Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.

I guess the UAE took the President to heart when days after 9/11/01 he said, "You are either with us or against us".

 

[ylexot]

I guess the UAE took the President to heart when days after 9/11/01 he said, "You are either with us or against us".

I had the same thought yesterday!

 

[itsbob]

No, that's news to me. Thanks for the information.


Good point. For me, it comes down to this--most Middle Eastern governments are spoiled oligarchies, bloodthirsty secular dictatorships, or reactionary theocracies. None of them place much value on democracy and freedom of conscience. That in itself is scary enough.

Plus, the Muslims in those countries strongly resent the US for political and economic reasons as well as religious reasons. It's illogical to equate the US with the European powers that ruled much of the Middle East as colonies in the 20th century, but that illogic appeals to their false sense of victimhood.

So, I can't imagine working in the Middle East for an American embassy or an American oil company. I would feel like a black man in the Jim Crow South, or a dissident in the Soviet Union. Sometimes I think we should have bombed Tehran in 1979 the day after our hostages were seized, sacrificing the hostages if necessary, just to show that no one tries to push America around and gets away with it.

I agree 1000% with your last paragraph,, the lack of backbone on our part has led to most of the problems we have had in the world, we let everything go, no retribution other then nasty offical memo's and they kept pushing to see how far we would let them go.. attack a warship.. take American's hostage.. none of it seemed to matter to us.. nothing worth going to war over.

 

[Bruzilla]

Larry, I guess I'm still not seeing the national security threat in this deal. Are any of these ports going to gave a bastion of UAE troops that we would have to fight through if for some reason the port was closed? No. Is there any way that the US couldn't easily seize control of any of these ports of they were closed and posed a national security threat? No. Is there any weapon or alien terrorist that could be shipped over in the future that can't be shipped to the US now? No. I would concede your point if we were closing the ports and having shipments routed through a foreign country where we would have to fight foreign troops on their territory to reopen the ports, but that's onviously not the case here.

Also, we need to look at this whole issue through the eyes of the terrorists, who have limited resources, limited means to move money within the US and fund operations, and whose communications are highly unsecure, which makes all operations high risk. All of this means that operations have to be planned and conducted to deliver the maximum level of terror and media attention. All that being said, what's the strategic or tactical benefits of attacking/closing a port? Even if they succeeded for some reason in closing down 20 ports, there are still hundreds more, so there's little strategic value. As for the tactical side, there's not a lot of people at a port, so launching an attack on one isn't going to get a lot of outcry from the media. So, if you're a terrorist and you want to make a splash, do you attack a mall, a major industrial/manufacturing center, a nuclear power plant... or a port? Terrorists may be crazy but they aren't very dumb, and they don't waste resources unless there's going to be a great deal of return, and ports don't offer much return.

So the only other security issue is the smuggling of weapons or aliens into the US, and right now even if you made the security at every port airtight there's nothing preventing them from being smuggled in through marinas, private docks, or just landed on a beach. Yes, as you mentioned there are lots of people proposing "could be...", "might be able to...", etc., scenarios, but with all the modifiers the same could be said about space aliens attacking ports with lazer guns. A true reality check shows that the closing of a port would have no real national security impact even if terrorists would waste the resources to do it.

 

[Larry Gude]

It might be a two way street Ken...

...but I have repeated your position as you wrote it; Ports are not a national security risk.

You have not, as yet, reciprocated.

I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strongest suit. I only said that our government doesn’t feel that port operations are a vital national interest or they wouldn’t authorize them to be conducted by foreign companies.

Oh, so now you are spokesman for the feds? This whole time I'm not getting your opinion but regurgitation of the Bush line?

Next waste of time:

No, I don’t think there is much difference. If a company or government gets authorization to conduct the business they have bid on.

I read you LOUD and clear. No difference. Company, government, same/same.

Next thing over your head:

The problem is that you still have yet to understand that the port security will be maintained by authorized US personnel and agencies, the company will only off-load, on-load, coordinate movement, and provide security for the items while they are in storage.

This is the first time I can remember debating with you when you simply will not count anything I've said. The physical security is clear and I have not contested this issue on these grounds; it stays in US hands. That has, not once, been my point but you insist on repeating it and then blissfully go on to ignore not only that I've recognized that part but then this jewel;

company will only off-load, on-load, coordinate movement, and provide security for the items while they are in storage

And there it is, the gleaming nugget. Handle the cargo, flow, and security while they are in storage, all while the Coast Guard inspects one out of 100 containers.

Ken, YOU are happy and OK with this, I AM NOT especially because a foreign government is in charge. I've always wondered what actually came through the monitor when I typed. I bet you'll STILL ignore what I am saying.

We are just chasing you all over the discussion because you don’t understand that the security of the port will in no way be impacted, regardless of your fears of what might happen.

Oh look! I only had to wait a paragraph! Great Ken. Great. Don't read a word I've written. None of it. You just keep arguing with this picture you have in your head. I'll keep using your words.

And back to being the “Twistmeister”, I would say we all agree that true items of “vital national security” belong under appropriate US control, I have yet to see anyone state otherwise

Oh, you mean other that all of you stating ports are not a national security issue? You guys are wrong. You don't have to accept it. You can't see an economic catastrophe because, well, you don't get it.

Write this down; We disagree. Please refer back to this next time you start to talk about the Coast Guards role again.

You are blinded by fear and cannot grasp that any company conducting port operations has nothing to do with port security. The may carry out their own cargo security but they have nothing to do with port security other than to be in compliance with it.

Those are your words, Ken. And these are as well:

will only off-load, on-load, coordinate movement, and provide security for the items while they are in storage

If you see no way a foreign nation could gum up shipping and create economic chaos through this ability, fine. WE DISAGREE.

There is not one thing about the actual responsibility of port security I have missed or misstated. I have been consistent from word one; The ability of a foreign government to cause us massive economic headaches through this type of control is clear. You simply say it is no biggie, I disagree.

Now, go ahead and, once again, talk about the actual security part. Go ahead and accuse me of missing a point I have not even contested, not once. Go ahead and state that you have no problem with a foreign government being in control. We STILL disagree.

And again, what can we sell next? How about Israel ONLY being in charge of loading and unloading delivery vehicles over at the State Department? How about they are ONLY responsible for the deliveries while they are storing them until each package makes it to it's recipient? I mean, they won't be responsible for ACTUAL security.

If a box at the port going to the state department, call it calculators or pencils, is OK for a foreign nation to handle and store and 'ONLY' be in charge of securing it while it is in 'storage' why not the same package at it's destination?