UAE Port Deal

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi MMMMMM,

Can you tell us exactly what is being outsourced. Apparently security of those ports has and will continue to remain the responsibility of the USCG. How much of an impact does this company's operation have on actual port security?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Stu,

The deal calls for outsourcing the management of the ports, right? Howcan that not affect the overall security scenario? Even if the USCG supplies the actual security grunt personnel, if some of the management running the port were to be compromised by infiltration of terrorist operatives, they could look the other way when nukes or dirty bombs are brought into our ports--or worse. By the way, only 5% of our incoming containers are inspected anyway (compared to 100% in Hong Kong). Allowing those who are potentially closer to the enemy, to be in charge of operation of our ports, strikes me as highly imprudent.

Besides, why the need to do it all in the first place? Maybe save a bit of money? Looking at the total contract size it is small potatoes compared to what our country spends routinely on many other things. No, there is no need to do this. And there are unacceptable risks, which even if low, are to be properly weighted very heavily because the disatrous result would be devastating. Look at it this way: odds vs. what we stand to win or lose. Even tiny increased odds of having nukes go off in our ports is unacceptable when it comes to saving a few hundred million dollars or even a billion, because losing those cities would cost us TRILLIONS. And that's just the financial cost.

[adios]

The message being sent by the outcry in the U.S. over this to the Arab world, America thinks all Arabs should be suspected of terrorism as well as not worthy of trust and cooperation. Xenophobia rears it's ugly head and the Democrats have found their winning hot button issue, appeal to it and fan it's flames. Very low handed.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I wouldn't wish for my WORST enemy to deal with the American longshoreman's union. These people are the laziest and most militant union people in the world. Bush obviously hates the UAE and has tricked them into trying to manage these lazy scum.

When the longshoremen aren't assaulting visting fans at Oakland Raider games (and Philadelphia Eagle games) they are brainstorming how to get paid more for only working one hour a week.

We should not attack the UAE for this port deal. Instead we should pity them. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Very low handed

[/ QUOTE ]

Their learning from the best

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very low handed

[/ QUOTE ]

Their learning from the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats are no stranger to low handed tactics to gain politically.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very low handed

[/ QUOTE ]

Their learning from the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats are no stranger to low handed tactics to gain politically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like there are enough Islamo-phobic right-wingers (see: this thread) to prove there's enough bi-partisan idiocy to go around.

I'd rather be an opportunist than a bigot (and as we're all poker players, we shouldn't hold opportunists in such disregard -- but I certainly agree that this is nothing more than coarse opportunism on behalf of the Democrats; I'll need help understanding the widespread Republican opposition, though, without resorting to explanations that rely on xenophobia).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know whether to chalk this up to absolute incompetency and horrible judgment, or something more diabolical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I can't see the problem. This is capitalism at work, as simple as that.

Money has no affiliation, principles, nationality or odor.

[ QUOTE ]
The message being sent by the outcry in the U.S. over this to the Arab world, America thinks all Arabs should be suspected of terrorism as well as not worthy of trust and cooperation. Xenophobia rears it's ugly head and the Democrats have found their winning hot button issue, appeal to it and fan it's flames. Very low handed.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't see it as xenophobia but rather as prudence and common sense, to not outsource our port management especially to a Middle Eastern entity.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some Dems who are capitalizing on this politically in an underhanded way, but I don't think all are. I think this issue is a huge point of concern, and I think that turning our port management over to a Middle Eastern entity (especially one with some terrorist-activity-related red flags) could easily be a farbigger mistake than Carter giving up control of the Panama canal.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that this was a bad decision by our president. No WMD and all. No connection to 9/11 and all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit earlier in this thread you don't know the scope of work this company is contracted to perform yet you've already concluded its a bad decision. Don't you see anything wrong with your thought process?

Stu

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd post links but often the Atlantic articles require a subscription.

[/ QUOTE ]Some months ago, Foreign Affairs magazine carried an article about the many vulnerabilities of (the many) U.S. seaports and how few resources were allocated for their security.

That, too, would require a subscription.

original link