Port Update

All the facts... (0.00 / 0)

It's hard for me to believe that our national government could be this unbeleivably stupid. So, before I jump to that conclusion, can someone help me with all the facts, I have some questions.
What priviledges does 'ownership' of the port encompass exactly? Doesn't US customs still control what moves through the port? What exactly would be different with Dubai ownership.
I guess maybe I am naive and/or cynical at this point, but half of me can't believe that the government could be so careless and the other half can see this as a perfect opportunity for political grandstanding.
But I can't really make an informed decision until I know what excactly ownership of a port gets you. Does anyone really know?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 20:37:42 PM UTC

really? (0.00 / 0)

"half of me can't believe that the government could be so careless"

Do you really need me to start listing examples?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 21:18:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The political people in the White House were asleep (0.00 / 0)

at the switch....I doubt this was on their radar screen ...until now...and the Veto [look like a Strong Leader as the ship sinks] and the Dunno defense [?] were the only cards they have at this point.

I think it also demonstrates the difference between the average person's thinking vs. the average White House worker's thinking.  Dubai is a scary place for the average American and a friendly place for the Bush White House.  They in effect, probably thought nothing of it.

In and of itself, the admin position is logical, if wrong.  Coast Guard and Homeland Security still make the inspections, not the owner of the site.  Whether there is a British, Dutch or UK owner, it doesn't effect the inspections.

But common sense would dictate that you still should not make their job more difficult.  Just as you wouldn't want to keep your door unlocked just because there are police in your city.

On top of this, inspections are few and far between, and that means the owner would have a large amount of uninterrupted time with these shipments.  Giving ownership to a country with questionable terrorist ties would seem just against common sense.

Their only hope now is that


myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com

---

by: underdogdemocrat @ Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 21:50:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...Joe Lieberman can bail them out (0.00 / 0)

of trouble like he's so fond of doing
for the Bush Administration....

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com

---

by: underdogdemocrat @ Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 21:51:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From what I understand, (0.00 / 0)

The majority of inspections are done overseas. Apparently we already depend on our people/allies at the ports of origin to inspect the incoming material. As mentioned above, I'm thinking the US only spot checks about 5% of incoming containers randomly.
Isn't it really semantics who 'owns' the port. It's not as if Dubai workers will be unloading cargo, I'm pretty sure the longshoremen have a lock on those jobs.
Isn't it is just a holding company that acquired the British company that already owned the ports?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 00:51:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what if (0.00 / 0)

what if the US has some kind of disagreement with the UAE government and they decide to use their control of our ports as leverage against us? Even worse, what if their government actually decides to shut down our ports? It's not a trivial distinction that the port will be run by a company OWNED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, not merely a company that happens to be in another country.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 02:22:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is as simple as consequences (0.00 / 0)

Look, a long time ago, back when the smoldering rubble was still fresh in everyone's head, and Osama Bin Laden was public enemy number one, a President said, "you are either with us, or against us."

A new era of consequences stood between us and the enemy.

If you did business in any way shape or form with terrorists, then you did not do business with us. That was the consequence.

Then the Iraq war came along, and it seemed clear that if you had some sort of dubious connection to terrorism, even if it was years in the past, you were going to get your ass kicked.
And we would take over your country and your oil, and leave you with a civil war shithole.

This port deal simply says the following. Go ahead, be an Islamo-fascist nation, be a terrorist helper, be a funder of terrorism, it will have no consequence on your business dealings with us.

Its that simple folks, in reality, if you can't seem to fathom the national security issues, you should at least fathom the foreign policy issues. The issue of us going back on our words of "you are either with us or against us."

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:28:11 AM UTC